Sitting of 12 June 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Corn Averages, appointed.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment * [292]; Customs (Wine Duty) * [293].
Second Reading—Accumulations [55]; Trawling (Scotland) [155], debate adjourned.
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Third Night]—R.P.; Oaths [7]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Victoria University * [198].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (No. 10) * [275]; Local Government (No. 11) * [276].
Report—Local Government (No. 7)* [267]; Local Government (Port) * [259]; Local Government (Highways) * [258]; Gas and Water * [247]; Gas (No. 2) * [245]; Water (No. 2)* [246].

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— INTERFERENCE AT NEWTOWNARDS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the recent meeting at Newtownards, Whether his attention has been called to a report of the meeting in The Newtownards Chronicle, of April 28 last, in which the following appears:—
  "On Friday evening, a few minutes after 7 o'clock, District Inspector Ward, Head Constable Smyth, and one or two other members of the Force, went to the Ulster Hotel and warned Miss M'Kee against allowing the meeting to be held on her premises;"
  whether he will state with what object District Inspector Ward visited the proprietress of the hotel on that evening, where the interview took place, and the nature of the conversation between them; and, whether he will give the names of the other members of the Constabulary who called at the Ulster Hotel on that day respecting the meeting?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that the newspaper statement is not correct. On the evening in question
  1822
  he went at about 7.30 o'clock, unaccompanied by any member of the Force, to the hotel. Miss M'Kee he neither warned nor oven saw on the subject. The object of his visit was to ascertain whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was going to address a meeting at the hotel that evening. His interview with the proprietress took place in a room upstairs, and did not last five minutes. The nature of the conversation was an inquiry of his as to whether a meeting was to be held that evening in the hotel; and a statement of his that, if so, it would probably be addressed by the hon. Member referred to. The proprietress thereupon said—quite spontaneously, without any "urging" or prompting on the part of the District Inspector—that if she found such to be the case she would not allow the meeting to be held. The only other member of the Constabulary who called that day was Head Constable Smyth. He did so as acting for the District Inspector, who was absent until the evening on inspection duty.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(SCOTLAND) —APPOINTMENT OF JUNIOR INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS.
  MR. WALLACEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to The Journal of Education, for May of this year, which states that Mr. T. A. Stewart, one of the junior Inspectors of Schools in Scotland, has been appointed to the office of Chief Inspector, on the vacancy caused by the death of the late Dr. Wilson; whether it is true, as stated in that journal, that nine senior and thoroughly qualified Inspectors were passed over by the appointment of Mr. Stewart; whether he will state the name and length of service of each of the nine Inspectors so passed over; whether promotion to senior Inspector-ships in Scotland has hitherto been strictly according to seniority; and, whether promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is to be regulated by seniority or by other considerations, and, if the latter, what those considerations are?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)(who replied) said: Mr. Stewart was appointed as Chief Inspector in room of the late Dr. Wilson. There

  1823
  were nine Inspectors whose appointments dated from six years to two months before that of Mr. Stewart, and the Lord Advocate will be glad to give the hon. Member privately the information he desires with regard to their names and length of service. As has frequently been stated before, seniority is one, but not the most important, of the elements taken into account in deciding promotion, special merits being the chief consideration. In the case of the small number of appointments which have previously been made, seniority and special merit were, in their Lordships' opinion, combined.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES—THE ARRANGEMENT WITH FRANCE IN 1886.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What were the reasons given by the Newfoundland House of Assembly for their "disinclination to adopt the arrangement arrived at in Paris," in 1886 by the respective agents of the Governments of France and Great Britain in regard to the disputed claims of the French as to their fishing rights upon the coasts of the Island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The chief ground of objection on the part of the Newfoundland Legislature was that the proposed arrangement gave to French fishermen the right of purchasing bait for the prosecution of their fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, thereby enabling them to take fish, the sale of which entered into competition with fish caught by Newfoundland fishermen, who were unable to compete with the French in the markets of Europe owing to the large bounties given by the French Government to their fishermen.
  In answer to a further Question from Mr. SAMUELSON,
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, Her Majesty's Government had always held that the right of fishing was common off certain parts of the coast; but the Newfoundland Legislature held that if the French were allowed to purchase bait it would be prejudicial to the interests of the Newfoundlanders.

  WAR OFFICE—THE SCOTS FUSILIERS AT PORTUMNA.
  MR. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Major Inver, commanding a company of the Scots Fusiliers stationed at Portumna, County Galway, issued orders to the men under his command on the 10th ultimo, stating that, on pain of imprisonment, they should not enter the house of Thomas Nayes, licensed publican of that town; and, can he state what was the reason for giving such order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The house in question was placed out of bounds by the officer in command in the exercise of his power as such. I see no ground for questioning his discretion. It is impossible to expect that the administrative and executive functions entrusted to officers in command will be properly exercised if this House intervenes in such minute questions of detail as placing a public-house out of bounds.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND)— KILLARNEY BOARD OF GUAR- DIANS.
  MR. SHEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the reason of the delay in remitting to the Killarney Board of Guardians the first instalment of the loan sanctioned on March 6 last in respect of the Act providing for the erection of labourers' cottages?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. The loan has not been sanctioned by the Treasury, and the matter is still under consideration.

  LICENSING ACT (IRELAND)—CONVICTIONS AT MACROOM PETTY SESSIONS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the adjourned Petty Sessions held at Macroom Major General Caddell, R.M., presiding, on May 18, a publican named Denis Cronin and three men found on the premises on Sunday, the 13th instant, were each fined £1 and costs for a breach of the Licensing Act, and that in all the other cases against publicans

  1825
  heard on the first sitting, on the 16th instant, the fines inflicted were 10 s. each with costs; if he can state the reason why the fine was doubled in the case of Cronin?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Resident Magistrate reports that each of the cases referred to in this Question was considered on its merits; and that the Bench of three magistrates were unanimous in inflicting the penalty named in the case of Denis Cronin and three others. Cronin had rendered himself liable to a fine of £10, and three others to a fine of 40 s. each.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was a fact that Major General Caddell, who adjudicated on these cases, had on several occasions been obliged to be assisted home by the police on account of his drunken condition?
  [No reply.]

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEFALCATIONS IN THE BALLYMENA UNION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that serious defalcations, to the amount of £1,500, have been discovered in the Ballymena Union; whether the late clerk, T. A. Matthews, and his son, R. R. Matthews, are held responsible for the embezzlement; whether R. R. Matthews has absconded; if it is a fact that Colonel Massey Studdert, the Local Government Board Auditor, when auditing the books, never checked them, but took Matthews's word that they were correct, and never called at the bank to verify the half-yearly balance; and, whether the Local Government Board have refused a sworn inquiry into these matters; and, if so, for what reason?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is the fact that defalcations have been discovered in the accounts of the Ballymena Union, amounting, it is stated, to about £1,700. Proceedings are pending against the late clerk on a criminal charge; but the Guardians cannot take proceedings against his son, R. Matthews, his whereabouts not being known. It is suspected that he left the country some time ago. Mr. F. Matthews's sureties have paid £300, being the amount of his fidelity bond. Colonel
  1826
  Studdert reports that there is no truth in the statement that he never checked the books of the Ballymena Union, but took Mr. Matthews's word that they were correct. Colonel Studdert further reports that he did not call at the bank to verify the half-yearly balance; that the bank book was produced at each audit, with the signature of the presiding Chairman attached to each weekly balance; and that this was the recognized authority for the genuineness of the book, though, in the present case, it turned out that the bank book was a false book, with the signatures skilfully forged. As I have already stated, in reply to a previous Question, if specific charges be preferred against any of the officers of the Union, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of holding an inquiry.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not a fact that the cloak which the Chairman of the Board, who is a member of the Orange Society, threw over these officials, materially assisted and contributed to these defalcations?
  [No reply.]

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— THE VOLUNTEERS—THE LONDON IRISH RIFLES—TRAINING AS DRIVERS, &c.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that an officer of the London Irish Rifles, at his own expense, trained a squad of over 20 men as drivers, and also for the duty of loading the waggons as per Regulations; whether the officer applied through his colonel to the War Office for the loan from the Government of four waggons for three months to perfect the men in the discharge of their duties, such waggons lying idle at the time at Woolwich and elsewhere; and, whether the Government refused the application, and on what grounds?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): An application was received from the London Irish Rifles for the loan for three months of three general service transport waggons and one ambulance waggon. It was considered necessary to refuse the application, for two reasons. First, because if the loan were made to

  1827
  this corps it could not be refused to others; and as the stock of waggons is only intended to meet Army requirements, it is not desirable to draw upon it for other purposes. Secondly, because a scheme of regimental transport for Volunteers is under trial, an essential feature of which is the providing from local sources of vehicles and horses, assistance being granted by Government in the matter of forage.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—OPOBO—KING JA JA.
  MR. PICTON(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and what, steps were taken, and, if so, when, to cause King Ja Ja to understand the meaning and effect upon his territory of the arrangements concluded by the Berlin Conference; and, whether he can specify the particular provisions of the Berlin Treaty of July 13, 1878, which have any bearing upon, or relation to, the conduct of King Ja Ja?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The hon. Member appears to confuse the Berlin Conference of 1878, which had reference chiefly to the affairs of Eastern Europe, and that of 1885, which dealt with those of Africa. Ja Ja was informed by Acting Consul White of the only provisions of the Act of Berlin of 1885 which affected him—namely, the engagement of Her Majesty's Government to permit freedom of navigation within the protectorate of the Niger and its branches, as appears on page 33 of the Paper lately presented to Parliament.
  In reply to Mr. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.),
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the King was now living in the Government House at St. Vincent. When a settled Government had been established in his former territory, which he hoped would shortly be the case, the King would probably be allowed to return.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE BLACKWALL TUNNEL.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB, &c.)asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether, on behalf of the Metropolitan
  1828
  Board of Works, he can give a specific assurance that the construction of the Blackwall Tunnel for vehicular traffic will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and that there is no intention to abandon any part of the undertaking?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I can assure the hon. Member that the Board will carry out the plans as approved by Parliament in their entirety. They consist of one foot and two vehicular tunnels. As the construction, from its novelty, is expensive, the first contract is for the foot tunnel; and the experience so gained will, the Board hope, conduce to the cheaper construction of those for vehicles.

  HOSPITAL SUNDAY (METROPOLIS)— COLLECTIONS IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether, on Sunday, June 10, the usual annual Hospital Sunday collection was forbidden by the Metropolitan Board of Works on all the open spaces under the control of the Board; and, whether this is the first occasion on which such Hospital Sunday collections have been so prohibited?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: The Metropolitan Board of Works some time ago made, with the consent of the Secretary of State, a bye-law prohibiting the collection of money on the open spaces under the Board's control. Some of the persons holding religious meetings on the commons asked to be allowed to collect money for the benefit of the hospitals on Sunday, June 10. The Board, however, thought that objection might fairly be taken to the relaxation of the bye-law in favour of any particular body of persons or of any particular object.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he would state the considerations that had induced him to approve the bye-law forbidding collections being made on the open spaces under the control of the Board?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that, so far as his memory went, he knew nothing about it. It must, he

  1829
  supposed, have been approved by one of his Predecessors in Office.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter, and see whether such restriction could not be removed in cases of a collection for perfectly uninjurious objects?
  MR. MATTHEWSsignified assent.

  THE TRUCK ACTS—THE RHYMNEY IRON COMPANY.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a communication signed by two shareholders in the Rhymney Iron Company, and by two tradesmen resident in Rhymney, alleging the persistent continuance of truck practices at Rhymney; and, whether any, and what, steps are being taken by the Inspector of Factories in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received such a communication, and counter-communications from the Directors of the Company. The whole matter has been referred to the Chief Inspector for full inquiry, and for such action as appears suitable when the facts are ascertained.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— SCHOOL TEACHERS' RESIDENCES.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are empowered, under any Rule made by the Treasury, to require any particular individual to become security for a loan for a national school teachers' residence; and, whether it is necessary that the applicant or lessee should become security when the security of three other persons, any one of whom is sufficient for the entire loan, is offered, and to none of whom the Commissioners object?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury has not made any Rule requiring any particular individual to become surety for a loan for a national school teacher's residence; but the Commissioners of Public Works, I believe, require (in addition to security for the repayment of the loan) that the manager of the school, or the lessee of the site, shall join in the bond, as they
  1830
  alone can secure the exclusive use of the residence for the intended purpose. There are two questions involved—one is security for the repayment of the loan, and the other is to secure that money borrowed in this way shall not be used for the purpose of erecting residences or dwellings which shall be used for other purposes than teachers' residences; and it is for the purpose of securing that that these men are asked to become bound.

  EGYPT—THE MINISTRY—RETIREMENT OF NUBAR PASHA.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) (for Mr. BRYCS)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that Nubar Pasha has retired from the service of the Khedive of Egypt, and that Riaz Pasha has undertaken the formation of a Ministry; and, if so, who are the members of that Ministry so far as now complete; and whether Her Majesty's Government has taken any, and, if so, what part in advising the formation of a new Ministry in Egypt?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is true that Nubar Pasha has retired, and that Riaz Pasha has undertaken the formation of a Ministry. Sir Evelyn Baring has reported by telegraph that the Ministry has been constituted; but we are not yet officially informed of the names of its members. Her Majesty's Government have taken no part in bringing about the change of Ministry.

  WAR OFFICE—HYPOTHETICAL INVASION OF THIS COUNTRY.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the great divergence between the statements of the Adjutant General of the Army and the first Lord of the Admiralty as to the possibility of invading this country with a named number of men; and, what official and formally constituted system, in the shape of a Joint Committee or otherwise, exists for mutual information and joint action on the part of the Intelligence or other Departments of the War Office and Admiralty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE):

  1831
  I have road the statements made on this subject both by my noble Friend and by the Adjutant General. I, for one, deprecate the raising of any such controversy in public; but, in my opinion, the main divergence arises from the fact that the conditions of the problem are different in the two calculations, and especially as regards the force to be transported. There is intimate and close communication between the two Intelligence Departments; and questions that arise affecting both the Admiralty and the War Office are habitually discussed between the two Directors. So far as I am concerned—and I am sure I may speak for my noble Friend also—I have done, and will do, everything I can to promote this object.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY AGENTS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a considerable loss was recently incurred by the bankruptcy of a firm who were agents for two Cavalry regiments; and, whether Army agents will in future be required to give security to the Secretary of State?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The debt of the bankrupts to Government was £1,030 6s. 6d., but little of which is likely to be recovered. As regards the future system of agency, including the question of security, the Treasury is now considering certain proposals which we have made to them on the subject.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE LICHFIELD CHARITIES.
  SIR JOHN SWIN BURNEasked the first Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will cause the inquiry into the Lichfield Charities, which is ordered to be held on June 20, 1888, to take place at 7 p.m. in lieu of 2 p.m., in order to admit of the poor and labouring portion of the inhabitants of the City of Lichfield giving evidence without losing half a day's labour?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to answer this Question. In accordance with the usual practice the Inspector will be prepared to adjourn the inquiry upon application being made to hint on behalf of any persons
  1832
  desirous of giving evidence, and who may be unable to be present at 2 p.m.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—WITHDRAWAL OF THE LICENSING CLAUSES.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the House that it has been the duty of the Government to consider the state of Public Business, in connection especially with the principal measure of the Session, and I have now to ask the House to permit me to communicate to it the conclusions the Government have arrived at on the subject. The House will remember that, in introducing the Local Government Bill, I informed the House that the Government had felt it to be their duty to make proposals in the Bill dealing with the Licensing Question; but that they did not consider that portion of the Bill as one which was in any sense vital to the Bill. The proposals we made were of such a nature that we hoped they would have been recognized as very substantial concessions. We believe the effect would have been to reduce the number of public-houses wherever such a reduction was desirable. It is, however, clear that our proposals will meet with strenuous opposition. There are on the Paper no less than 200 Amendments on the Licensing Clauses, occupying 13 pages of the Notice Paper. We have not yet completed the consideration of the 2nd clause in the Bill, which consists of 125 clauses; and we are now within little more than two months of the end of an ordinary Session. The chances, therefore, of being able to deal with this question, as well as with the many other important questions in the Bill, are, in the face of the Opposition, very small; and the result of a determination to adhere to these clauses might very well be that we should find ourselves, after a prolonged struggle, with so little time left as to make it practically impossible to pass the remainder of the Bill during the present Session—a result which, we believe, would be regarded both in the House and the country as little short of disastrous. Looking, therefore, to all the circumstances of the case, the Government have resolved that they

  1833
  will not ask the House to proceed with the Licensing Clauses of the Bill.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSON: The right hon. Gentleman, in the statement he has now made, has referred to the Licensing Clauses of the Bill. I hope he does not intend to include in that category Clause No. 9, which deals with Sunday closing. No question of licenses or of compensation arise out of that clause.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes; the determination of the Cabinet includes all the clauses in any way bearing on the Licensing Question.
  MR. STANSFELD: I think I am entitled, in the name of my Friends on this side of the House, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on the conclusion at which they have arrived. I venture to express the opinion that it is a sensible conclusion. I agree with the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I do not think it would have been practicable, even with the use of the powers which the new Rules give the Government, to pass the whole of this measure, including the Licensing Clauses, during the remainder of this Session, unless it were most unduly prolonged. I must admit that I, for one, regret, for some reasons, the conclusion to which the Government has come, though I think it wise and inevitable. It would have been a great thing if it had been possible for this House to have come to some conclusion with anything like unanimity upon this great question. But I cannot deny that the Government gauged the situation, so far as I can judge, correctly; and, therefore, I have nothing to say in deprecation of the resolution they have now announced to the House. But with respect to the question of my hon. Friend as regards Clause 9, I hope that that may be a matter for further consideration. ["No, no!"] I would remind hon. Members that none of the clauses can be withdrawn without the consent of the House. The 9th clause stands on quite a different footing from all the others. I need not trouble the House by any explanation of it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is out of Order in discussing the clauses.
  MR. STANSFELD: Then I will not pursue the subject further.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE BANN, BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he hoped to be able to introduce the Drainage Bills of which he had given Notice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury; and we agree that the most convenient course would be to introduce the Bills as the first Order of the day on some Government afternoon, on the understanding, of course, that the discussion would not last very long. My right hon. Friend will announce the precise day on which he will take that course as soon as he can.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND BILL.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he supposed that although this Bill was on the Paper, there was no intention of proceeding with it to-night?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th June.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

COUNTY COUNCILS.

  PART I.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of Council and position of chairman).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Amendment which he had to propose was a very simple one; its object was to assimilate the method of retirement and eletcion of County Councillors to that already adopted in the case

  1835
  of Town Councillors under the Municipal Corporations Act. He need hardly remind the Committee that under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act one third of the Town Councillors retired every year. If the words he proposed to omit were omitted, then the election of County Councillors would take place in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act—one-third would retire in each year, instead of the whole body retiring every third year. He had not heard that any objection had been raised to the present method of the retirement of Town Councillors; he believed there was no demand for any change in that respect. On the other hand, there was a system of triennial election in the cases of the school boards throughout the country. Under the Education Act, the members of school boards retired every third year. He had heard many complaints in respect to the retirement of the whole school board every third year. It was alleged that in many cases it resulted in a want of continuity of administration and policy. It not unfrequently happened that the majority of the school board was changed at an election, not in consequence of objections to the board's general policy, but on account of some objection to a detail of management on some special subject. There were many people who thought it would be a great advantage in the case of school boards if the elections could take place in the same way as the election of Town Councils did. On the whole, therefore, it appeared to him that the system adopted under the Municipal Corporations Act was a better one than that provided in the Bill. The Government themselves did not seem to be very clear as to which was the best system, for he observed that in Clause 43 it was proposed that in the case of the District Councils the elections were to be conducted upon the plan provided by the Municipal Corporations Act—one-third of the members were to retire every year. County Councillors, therefore, were to retire in a body every third year, while a third of the District Councillors would retire every year. It appeared to him it was desirable there should be one system for Town Council, County Council, and District Council; and that the
  1836
  best system was that one-third of the members should retire each year. It had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that annual elections might result in the turmoil of a General Election each year. But the Committee ought to bear in mind that under the Bill there would be only one representative for each district. Therefore, there would only be the turmoil of an election in one-third of the districts in each year. Under the circumstances, he thought the system of election provided by the Municipal Corporations Act was the best, and that it should be applicable to the different authorities. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out all after "years" to end of sub-section (b).—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. It seemed to him there were two strong arguments in its favour. The first argument was that in this matter they were following the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, which the President of the Local Government Board said that, as a rule, he should endeavour to follow throughout the Bill. That, alone, was a strong argument in favour of this particular proposal. The other strong argument was that they would not get continuity of policy, which they should get on Councils of this kind, if all the members retired at the same time. He should prefer that we should elect these Councillors for six years and that one-third of them should go out of office every two years. If they could have agreed to that he would have been perfectly prepared to have dropped the Aldermen altogether. That would have been a very great improvement in the Bill. However, they had decided to keep the term of election three years. He earnestly hoped the Government would adopt this proposal, and let one-third of the Councillors go out every year.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of the right hon.

  1837
  Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). There was a financial side to the question of which it was desirable the Committee should take note. It was a side of the question which had come under his notice, as he had the honour for five or six years at one time to be the Chairman of the Finance Committee of a large Corporation. The proposal of the Government was to throw the cost of the election of the whole of the County Council on one particular year. Under the system of the Municipal Corporations Act the cost of elections was distributed over three years, and, looking at the fact that the rates were to bear a considerable portion of the cost, it became a serious question. Reference had been made to school board elections. The school board election in the borough of Birmingham cost the ratepayers about £1,000, and that sum was quite sufficient to compel the Corporation to raise an additional rate of ½d. in the £1. The practice and the law was to levy the rate as near to the amount necessary as a ½d. rate would give, and the custom was not to levy for any small balance there might be. But if the balance was increased by the sum of £1,000, such a Corporation as that of Birmingham was obliged to levy a ½d. rate which they would not otherwise levy. Therefore, he begged to point out to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) that the system which he proposed was one which would, in all probability, inflict on a particular year a heavier ratal than would otherwise be inflicted. That was a point which he thought told strongly in favour of adopting in regard to the County Councils the system which applied to Municipal Corporations, under which only one-third of the Councillors retired annually, and under which there was no necessity for Corporations to alter the unit of ratal.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, he trusted the President of the Local Government Board would accept this or some similar Amendment. The system by which one-third of the members of Municipal Corporations retired each year had, he understood, worked very well. It had given to the Corporations a continuity of work, and he could not help thinking that the wisest course would be to adhere to it. In the case
  1838
  of the London School Board a totally different system prevailed. The whole body retired every third year, and he understood that at each election there was a complete change in the composition of the Board. He certainly thought it would be very much better that the system of election provided by the Municipal Corporations Act, which had worked well, should be carried out in this measure. But he did not think that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would effect the object in view. It did not make it clear that for the first three years the individuals elected should retain office; it did not make it clear that one-third should retire each year after the first three years. Therefore, whilst agreeing with the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he did not quite see that the Amendment would carry out the views of its mover.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for information as to the election of the Borough Councillors?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as far as the Town Councils in the boroughs which were to be made counties in themselves were concerned, they would practically be County Councils. Of course, he did not imagine there would be any alteration in the name. There certainly would be no alteration whatever with respect to their election. It seemed to be supposed that there would be two Councils in these boroughs. Nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who moved the Amendment, said that the Government were somewhat departing from their principle in having a different system for election for the County Councils from what they had in boroughs. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in that observation; but although they had gone on the lines of the Municipal Corporations Act in setting up County Councils, there were material differences between County Councils and Town Councils. They did not propose, therefore, to adhere strictly to the proposal in the Municipal Corporations Act with reference to annual retirement. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the area over which the Town Council ruled was divided into three-membered areas. There was an

  1839
  annual election in every area. The result of that was that every elector in every part of the borough was able to record his vote annually. The material difference in the proposal of the Government was that they suggested that single-membered areas should be set up. It would not, of course, be in Order for him to argue as to the advantages or disadvantages of single-membered areas; he would have an opportunity of doing that, he imagined, later on. Single-membered areas would, of course, increase very materially the difficulty of adopting the provision in the Municipal Corporations Act with reference to annual retirement. He did not mean to say that some arrangement could not be made by which there should be annual retirement even in the case of County Councillors; but the result would be very different from that which obtained in towns. They might set up groups of single-membered areas, and they might say that A should elect its member this year, that B should elect its member next year, and C should elect its member the following year. But by that arrangement no constituency in the country would be able to return a member more than once in three years. No voter would be able to give his vote for a member oftener than once in three years, so that there was that which was a most material difference between the position of Town Councils and of County Councils. They had proposed the system of election every three years; firstly, because they suggested single-membered areas, and, secondly, because they believed it would cause considerably less cost both to the candidates and to the counties. Looking to the charges which would devolve upon County Councillors, the latter was a very material consideration. He had always contended that although they generally adopted the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act, they departed occasionally from the exact stipulations of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that there was no other elected local Body except the school board, which was elected en bloc every three years. There were, however, numerous cases in which Boards of Guardians were elected every three years. Upon an application made to it, the Local Government Board might sanction an election triennially instead
  1840
  of annually, and there were many Boards of Guardians the members of which were elected every three years. Speaking of the system of election in the case of school boards, the right hon. Gentleman said that, on the whole, it was not considered satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman might be in possession of information which he (Mr. Ritchie) did not possess, to show that such a mode of election was unsatisfactory; but there was a material difference between the school board and the Council set up by the Bill. The Committee had agreed to the proposal of the Government with reference to selected Councillors or Aldermen. There was, therefore, an element there which was not in existence in school boards. There was to be an aldermanic Body which was to be elected for six years, so that they would always be able to secure that continuity which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman it was extremely desirable to secure. On the whole, and especially looking to the fact that one of the main principles they wished to insist upon was single-membered areas, he hoped the Committee would assent to the proposal made by the Government on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had laid stress upon the fact that the members of District Councils were to be elected annually, while the members of County Councils were to be elected triennially. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would see that District Councils possessed in a greater degree than County Councils the characteristics of Town Councils. What they were setting up throughout the country were, first of all, County Councils having jurisdiction over the whole county, and then they were setting up a series of Town Councils, although they did not call them so, with smaller jurisdiction.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, tried to explain to the Committee why he adopted the system of triennial elections in the case of County Councils, whilst he adopted the system of annual elections—one-third were to retire annually—in respect of District Councils; but he confessed the right hon. Gentleman had not made at all clear to his mind—he doubted whether he had made clear to the mind of

  1841
  the Committee—any tangible principle on which that distinction rested. What those who supported the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) argued was, in the first place, that the President of the Local Government Board had announced his intention of, as far as possible, following the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act; and, in the second place, that, in respect to the election of the District Council, he adopted the very mode they now advocated. The only objections at all tangible which the right hon. Gentleman had urged to the Amendment had been two. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman had objected on the ground of expense. That was not the first matter they had to consider. What they had to consider was, how could these Councils be best constituted for carrying on efficiently the work of local administration? The right hon. Gentleman had said that under this Bill it was proposed to have single-membered areas for the election of the County Councils; but he had admitted it would not be at all impossible to introduce the principle of annual election—the principle of the retirement of one-third of the Council every year. There were many hon. Members who thought it would be wise if the right hon. Gentleman followed the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act in this respect, and if he associated three members with each electoral district, so that one member should retire every year just as one of the representatives of the ward of a town did. He would not enter into the subject now, because it could be discussed hereafter. All he would say upon it was that, whether the right hon. Gentleman adopted the one-member area, or the three-member area, it was perfectly possible for him to follow the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and to adopt the system whereby one-third of the Council retired every year. What he particularly wished to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was that they had had some experience of the working of the system of triennial elections in the case of the school boards. He had had some little experience of the London School Board, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that what was stated yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport
  1842
  (Mr. Sydney Gedge) with reference to the London School Board, was perfectly true. If they elected a Body for three years, the first year was spent by the members in learning their business, in the second year they did their work reasonably well, and the third year they spent in thinking of the coming election. That did not tend to good administration. Moreover, the whole Board might be changed at the election; and possibly on some chance cry arising at the moment. On the other system—allowing for the Aldermen—such a cry would affect only one-fourth of the Council.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Clitheroe Division (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) seemed to treat finance as if it had nothing to do with good administration. He had said that they must endeavour to secure efficiency in the administration of local affairs; but his (Sir Richard Paget's) idea of efficiency was rigid economy, and that sound finance was the very essence of good government. Therefore he opposed anything which would throw unnecessary expense on the rates. Labouring under a misconception, the House unfortunately arrived at a conclusion last night in favour of the election of County Councillors for a period of three years; but he trusted that even yet that decision might be reversed. He believed it would be found that, in fixing a longer term, the efficiency they desired would be secured, and they would be able to get the best men or the best selected body. According to the Bill as it stood, no sooner would the members of the County Councils be elected, than one-fourth of them throughout England would be looking about for the next election. In other words, one-fourth would go out in the first year, another fourth would go out in the course of the next year, and only a small portion of the Council would remain for the full term of the office. He did not think that that was the best way to secure the services of good men. He was in favour of the principle of partial retirement; but he thought its application in the manner proposed would be mischievous and dangerous to the efficiency of the body he wished to see created. There was also another reason—namely, that the Amendment was inconsistent with the Bill as it was drafted. It was per-

  1843
  fectly clear that unless they entered into some arrangement and grouped together their electoral divisions in a way that was not provided for, much confusion would arise. The principle of the Bill was that of single-membered divisions, and, unless these wore linked together in pairs or triplets, no one would know in which Divisions new elections would have to take place. Unquestionably the system of harassing the counties with annual elections, year by year, was one which would be distasteful to all parties concerned, and on that ground he would oppose the Amendment.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he agreed very much with what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite, though he confessed that he approached the question from a different point of view. The hon. Member spoke of the importance of keeping up the interest of the electors in the work of the Common Council, but that was what frequent elections would fail to do. Nothing tended so much to injure the work as having the elections too frequently. Even a man with comparative leisure found it extremely difficult to take an interest in the numerous elections which now took place. Indeed, one of the curses of the present system was that one of its weaknesses was frequent elections; and if they multiplied those elections they would only increase the difficulty which now existed, and the democracy would take very little interest in the elections. Therefore, the multiplication of elections ought to be avoided. He agreed with the hon. Member that yesterday the Committee made a mistake. He thought it would have been far better if the selected members were elected, as the House of Commons was, practically, for six years, but the error which had been committed was one which could be set right afterwards. He did not think that they could gain anything by annual elections, and when they came to District Councils, he would urge on the Government to confess that that was a blot upon their measure, and to see whether it could not be remedied.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, the main object should be to obtain as good a body and as experienced a body of County Councillors as they could possibly secure. They should remember who these County Councillors were going to follow. They were about to take the
  1844
  places of a body of men elected for life to discharge the duties, and however able they might be, it would take them some years to master thoroughly the details of the work in which the magistrates had spent their lives. Now, what was the scheme of the Bill, and what would be the scheme, even if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were carried? They would have a body of men who would have a minimum of experience with a maximum of work to do. He wished that the system of periodical retirement had been at longer intervals than one year. He would much have preferred that one-third should retire every three years. By that means they would get men of experience upon the County Councils—seasoned men who would be better able to do the work thrown upon them. Under the proposed system there would be a number of unexperienced and useless men upon the Council. He therefore regretted that the system of retirement en bloc had been fixed upon by the Government, and he trusted that, before it was too late, the Government would introduce a system of periodical retirement.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that in framing a Bill of this kind they must be guided by experience. The country had had considerable experience of two modes of elections—namely, the annual retirement of one-third of the elected body in municipalities, a system which had been in force for 50 years, and the triennial retirement en bloc in school boards. The testimony of those who had had experience of both matters was in favour of the former. An hon. Member behind him (Mr. Powell Williams), who had been responsible for the finance of one of the largest boroughs in the country, had given his experience of the working of the system in municipal boroughs, and his right hon. friend (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), who was a member of the London School Board, confirmed the view which had been expressed as to the effect of retirement en bloc. He confessed that he was not satisfied with the scheme as it stood at present. He had voted last night against the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), but he had voted against it on account of a previous provision which had been carried. He thought that if the Aldermen were

  1845
  abolished it might be wise to elect all the Council for six years, one-third going out of office triennally. The hon. Member for Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) used a phrase which they had heard a good deal of in the course of the discussion—namely, that they wanted the best men. But the best men were those who had the confidence of the electors. There could be no other test. They were doing away with the theory of best men selected on nomination, who had no doubt discharged their duties with great ability—he referred to the county magistrates. They were substituting the principle of popular election, and it had its expensive side as well as its efficient side. Upon the question of cost he would venture to assert that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would not add one penny to the cost which, instead of being all incurred in one year, would be spread by the Amendment over three years. Instead of being paid in one lump sum for one election, supposing the cost was £30, it would be divided into three sums of £10 each. With regard to the question of administration, that could only be settled by the appointment of men of long and practical experience. He had sat upon a Town Council and upon a school board, and he spoke feelingly when he said that in one case he had never seen any disturbance with respect to the continuity of administration, whereas in the other case the work was turned into a state of chaos when a new Board was elected. It was also found that the candidates went to an election upon special cries at particular years, in accordance with the feeling which prevailed at the moment. One vexed question had been withdrawn from the discussion of these bodies, but there would be other questions arising in the early period of the establishment of these Councils. In the Town Council the administration went on systematically as a rule for three years, and public opinion was brought gradually to bear upon any important question. In the Town Council there was a body of men who were constantly in touch with the people, and that was the secret of the success of our municipal institutions. He could assure the hon. Member who spoke last with reference to the question of securing the best men and men who had the confidence
  1846
  of the people, that he was unwise in disregarding the great precedents of our municipal institutions. He did not think it was possible to find an institution in the history of this or any other country of popularly elected bodies discharging their duties so efficiently and with such general satisfaction as our Town Councils had done. No charge of corruption had been brought against them. The President of the Local Government Board knew that, in reference to the Local Boards of Health of the country which were far more numerous than Town Councils, the precedent of the election in municipal boroughs was strictly followed. The question of the election of Boards of Guardians formed no analogy, but the general principle adopted in regard to our municipal life had worked satisfactorily. What he desired was that the system of county government should work even better than that which had applied to the Town Councils, and that they should get good men who would possess the confidence of the constituents, and who would be perfectly in touch with them. He ventured to assert that in nine cases out of 10 the election of a good man was never challenged. With respect to continuity of administration, he attached great importance to such continuity though he did not attach much importance to continuity of policy. Policy was for the electors to decide. In municipal bodies there was, and in school boards, unfortunately, there was not, this continuity of administration. By the Government plan, some question which might for the moment be a burning one, but might in a few months be forgotten, might be decisive in the election for the whole period. Under the system which he advocated there would be no such abrupt transitions as he deprecated.
  MR. CURZONsaid, he thought the Government were quite right in making the Municipal Corporations Act the basis of the provisions of their Bill. At the same time he was convinced that too close an attention to the provisions of that Act might lead them to perpetuate some of the evils associated with its working. The right hon. Member who spoke last said they ought to be guided by experience. What experience pointed out to them was most

  1847
  obvious, and it was generally admitted that one of the greatest evils was that every November municipal boroughs were plunged into the turmoil on a small scale of a General Election. So far as his experience went, the wards in which contested elections took place presented much of the agitation and ill-feeling which were generally connected with a Parliamentary election. Surely they desired to leave out as much as possible from the county elections the evils which were associated with contested elections in the boroughs. He was sure that hon. Members who had municipal experience would agree that the frequency of elections had a great effect in inflaming Party spirit. He thought all would admit that it was most undesirable to introduce the same sort of thing into the counties. They wanted to keep them as far as possible free from elections conducted on Party grounds, and triennial elections would be more likely to effect that object than annual elections. A right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House said with an election every three years they might have a clean sweep of the Council, but in some circumstances that might be a very desirable thing. In municipal institutions as they were constituted at present, with annual elections, there was a constant shifting of policy and a want of continuity. He was aware that if triennial elections were introduced into the Bill, as proposed by the Government, a serious discrepancy would exist between the new County Councils and both Municipal Corporations and the county boroughs, because, in the case of the towns and the county boroughs, the elections would go on annually as they did now, while in the counties they would only take place once in three years. If that were so, he, for one, would not altogether regret it, as it might lead to the abandonment of the existing system in the towns. If they wanted to secure elections every three years in the boroughs, he thought the best way to set about it would be to establish triennial elections in the counties. If they were found to work well, they might look forward to a revision of the Municipal Corporations Act in the same sense.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that personally he was in favour of
  1848
  retirement by rotation, but the Committee last night came to a decision not to accept a longer term than three years. He advocated a term of either six or four years, with retirement by rotation every second year. He would not accept the principle that what had worked well in the boroughs would necessarily work well in the counties. The two were entirely distinct in their circumstances. The boroughs were divided into wards, and were thickly populated, the inhabitants being spread over a small area, so that the elections could be conducted at a small cost. The elections for the counties would be an entirely different thing, and he spoke from a considerable amount of experience, having been returning officer in 1880 during three county contests. In county elections they would have to provide a large number of polling booths in order to enable the labourers to poll after their work was done and record their votes. For every one of those polling booths it would be necessary to employ a paid returning officer and clerks, and to incur great expense in setting up machinery, exactly the same as if they had a Parliamentary election. He was strongly in favour of Local Government; but he ventured to think—and he had discussed the question with all classes during the last few months—that it would be disadvantageous to have these annual elections at the cost of the ratepayers. Having said this much, he confessed that he was rather taken aback by what his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) said at the end of his speech. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that they were to have their annual elections for the District Councils; and, if so, it did not signify much whether there was an annual election for the County Councils as well. The whole machinery would have to be put in force in the various districts, and the same expense would be incurred for one election as for two if both were held together. He objected to the Amendment because he believed it would be bringing in a very costly machinery. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) having been defeated, he wanted to see a uniform mode of election established, he did not are whether

  1849
  every two or three years, but one uniform mode of election, both for the District Councils and the County Councils, so that the elections for the District Councils should be held at the same time and manner as the County Councils. The right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and those who agreed with him, should remember that there were half-a-dozen polling districts set up in a county at great expense; whereas, in the boroughs, there was only one polling booth. [Cries of "No!"] Well, one Alderman presided over them, and he did not see how he could be in two places at once; and, at any rate, a most expensive machinery would have to be provided in the counties. He should vote against the Amendment, because he hoped to see the decision of last night reversed, and he hoped the Government would come to a decision by which all elections would take place on the same day, in the same manner, and in the same place.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he should not have troubled the Committee by making any observations if it had not been for the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for the Southport Division of Lancashire (Mr. Curzon), who spoke in deprecation of the system which now existed of having an election every year for Municipal Councils. He differed entirely from the hon. Gentleman because he had been convinced, by long experience and observation of municipal life, that annual elections in different boroughs were greatly to the advantage of the community. He did not believe that the ill-consequences the hon. Member alluded to did arise; but, on the contrary, he believed that the annual election kept alive the interest in the municipal life of the country, it directed the attention of the voters to the action of the Council, and he believed it was greatly to the benefit of the boroughs. It had been stated by an hon. Member who spoke on the other side of the House that those who were adverse to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Central Bradford had no confidence in the constituencies, and had no faith in the principle of municipal election. Now, he had great confidence in the municipal constituencies and in the maintenance of the principle of popular election; but
  1850
  he did not see that that question was at issue in this discussion, nor did he see in what way the popular principle was more concerned under a system by which one-third of the members went out each year than when the whole body gave up their seats on the Council at the same time. Unless they could draw a clear distinction between urban life and county life, it seemed to him that they were bound to follow the principle laid down in the Municipal Corporations Act. He regretted that the Government had not adopted the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex last night. At the same time, he believed that that was the consequence of what occurred in the course of the debate yesterday. For his own part, he still entertained a hope that as the discussion advanced the period might be enlarged, and that they might have a period of six years, or, at any rate, of four. They would then be in a position to provide that the retirement of the Council should not be, at the same time, en bloc, but a gradual retirement. He believed that such a principle would benefit not only the Councils themselves, but the constituencies.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he rose to intervene in the debate with the hope of bringing the discussion, if possible, to a close, although he had no objection to the continued discussion of a question which he admitted to be one of great importance, and which had been debated with admirable feeling on both sides of the Committee. The discussion showed a strong desire to constitute the County Council in such a manner as to conduce to its efficiency without any regard to Party considerations. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and he could not help saying in a very large measure he most heartily coincided with the views the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He only regretted that the speech was not delivered yesterday, when his hon. and gallant Friend's (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) proposal was before the Committee. He did not understand the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in the sense in which they

  1851
  were so admirably interpreted by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to say it might be provided that members of the County Councils who wore elected by a great majority of votes should hold office for a longer period than those members who were elected by a smaller number of votes. But the suggestion was not formulated by the right hon. Gentleman in any manner, nor expressed with the distinctness and clearness with which the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton expressed it. There could be no doubt that there was a vast difference between the conditions of rural life and the conditions of town life. The economy which prevailed in connection with town life was very different in regard to rural life. In a town there might be, in the space of two or three acres, a population sufficiently large to elect Town Councillors for two or three wards; but a space of some eight or 10 square miles would be required for a population sufficient to produce the same result for a County Council. The disturbance caused by an election must be far greater in a county than in a town, and therefore it was most desirable that the occasions for this disturbance and expense should not be more frequent than was necessary to keep the electorate in touch with those who represented them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford suggested that there should be an election of one-third of the members every year; but the cost of an annual election in a town would be far less than in a county.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not made that proposal. He had proposed that there should be an election every third year, which made all the difference.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was impossible to get about the county, to obtain conveyances, or to procure officers to conduct an election, except at an expense much greater than the expense in the towns. On the part of the Government, he would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view that the Government were not seeking to pass the measure in conflict with the Opposition, but rather with the assistance of the House of Commons as
  1852
  a whole. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment at this stage, and allow the Government to consider whether it might not be possible for them to adopt in some measure the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and to devise a system under which there would be an election of a portion of the Council every two years. If the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the proposal he had now made, the Government would, between that stage and the Report, endeavour to come to an amicable understanding with hon. Gentleman on both sides of the question, and to provide that the election of a portion of the Council should take place every two years, either by making the period four years or six years. That was a matter to be arranged; but he should think it would be better to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, and to make the period six years.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would also reconsider the Alderman question?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the essential part of his proposition was this—to do away with the Aldermen altogether, and to elect the Councillors for six years, one-third retiring every two years. He did not say that ample time should not be allowed for the consideration of the question; but he wanted to prevent any misconception as to what the nature of his proposal was. His proposal was to abolish Aldermen, and to make the election every six years, one-third going out every two years.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not think that it was necessary to come to any understanding at once as to the basis upon which a future understanding might be arrived at. Between this and the Report stage, the Government would endeavour to gather the feeling of the House upon the matter, and, having gathered that feeling, an opportunity would be afforded for reconsideration, and Amendments might be introduced on the Report.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, after what the right hon. Gentleman said, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment; but he trusted that the

  1853
  right hon. Gentleman would consider the question of the Aldermen in the meantime.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it must be distinctly understood that the only matter he had undertaken on the part of the Government to consider was the term for which the Councils should be elected in the first instance, and the manner in which they should retire. [Several hon. MEMBERS: And the Aldermen.] He was sure that hon. Members would not ask him to pledge himself to that which he was not, at the present moment, willing to undertake.
  MR. BARRANsaid, his only excuse for addressing the House was that he had considerable experience as a member of a Municipal Corporation. He had no wish to enter into the question, which had been fully discussed last night, in regard to Aldermen; but he should like to impress very strongly upon the First Lord of the Treasury the desirability of very carefully considering the question of the appointment of County Aldermen. A good deal was said last night upon that question, and a strong point was made by a number of Gentlemen on the other side of the House that it was desirable to have the best men to represent the counties in the County Council, and that by adopting the principle of electing or re-electing Aldermen they would secure that object.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it was quite out of Order to discuss that matter now.
  MR. BARRANsaid, that after the ruling of the Chairman he would not go further into the question; but he would ask the Government to consider the matter when they came to deal with the question they had promised to reconsider. The municipal system of retiring once in three years had worked so well in the Municipal Corporations, that he was quite sure if it were adopted in this case by the Government it would improve their Bill. He quite admitted that the elections in the counties would be of a very different order and character from those in the municipal boroughs. The population was very much thinner, the opportunities were very much fewer for the assembling of the people, and, in all probability, a great many more difficulties would present themselves. If, instead of having an annual election, the Government could provide any Bill,
  1854
  either for the election of one-half for two years, or select the whole for six years, retiring one-third every two years, in his opinion that would give a very much better representation of the people on account of the continuity of action. He hoped they would receive from the Government an assurance that the whole question, including that of the Aldermen, would be carefully reconsidered.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, he thought that it was unfair to press upon the First Lord of the Treasury the question of the Aldermen; but he would venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, that, as he had undertaken to reconsider the question, it also involved the question of six years, which was deliberately decided against by the Committee last night. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government reconsidered the subject, he thought they might, at the same time, take into consideration the scheme of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, which would undoubtedly bring about that continuity which the Government and others desired.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he did not think the offer which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) was everything that could be desired. The prospect offered by the right hon. Gentleman was that of a Council elected for six years, one-third of the elected members retiring every two years, and one-fourth of the whole body being elected every six years. He did not think that that principle was likely to be of much general advantage. The objection to elections at long intervals was that it took the decision practically out of the hands of the many and placed it in the hands of the few. If hon. Members would compare the experience they had had of Town Council elections with the experience of school board elections, they would see that there was much reason for believing that he was right in regard to Town Councils; they had an election every year, the machinery was always ready, and those who took an interest in them were always on the alert, so that there was no difficulty whatever in securing that the rights of the electors were preserved. But, in the case of a school board election, there was great excitement for a few days; but as soon

  1855
  as the member was returned, everything was forgotten. There was no machinery for conducting the elections, and, every few years, people were running about to collect money from their richer neighbours in order to create the machinery. The consequence was, that a few rich people had the entire election in their own hands, simply because there were no means of reaching the public; whereas, in the municipal elections, it was impossible to manipulate them in that way, as the democracy, as they were called, were always kept on the alert by annual elections, and the Council was in constant contact with the people they represented. It was on this ground, and not from any fear that continuity would not be preserved, that he was interested in providing that the election should be annual, and he would not be content with anything else. As to continuity, reference had been made to schools boards, of which he had had some experience. So far as his experience and observation went, the policy of the London School Board was absolutely continuous down to the last election in 1885. There was then a complete revolution. But this revolution was facilitated by the difficulty of securing popular interest in the election. And the same difficulty would be favourable to a determination on the part of a few men to keep the elections in their own hands. He was anxious that the people at large should elect these Councils, and should have their attention constantly fixed upon the manner in which their representatives discharged their duties. Further, they should always be prepared with adequate elective machinery in order to bring in the men they wanted. On that ground he was not satisfied with the offer made by the First Lord of the Treasury, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford would think twice before he withdrew his Amendment.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that it appeared to him that the object would not be secured by the multiplication or the too frequent multiplication of elections. The experience of the United States and their own, so far as it had gone, showed that when the people were constantly being called upon to give a vote the whole matter fell into the hands of the caucuses and
  1856
  machine politicians, a state of things which had never hitherto existed in this country, and which he, for one, would extremely deprecate. But he thought their object must be the same on all sides. They desired, of course, that there should be a certain continuity of administration, and they desired that the expense and the frequency of elections should not be too great, while, at the same time, they wished that there should be sufficient contact between the representative body and their constituents. He must say it seemed to him that that state of things would be secured by the suggestion which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, which was in accordance with the previous suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). The question of Aldermen was closely connected with this matter, for those who supported Aldermen in boroughs did so chiefly because they thought that Aldermen were the best means of securing a certain continuity of administration. But he thought it would be found that if each Council should be elected for six years, and one-third should retire every two years, the object for which Aldermen had been appointed was sufficiently secured, and they might very well get rid of what, after all, was an invidious portion of a representative body. Do doubt, if that were done in the case of the County Councils, the precedent would be soon followed in the case of Municipal Corporations.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was somewhat astonished at what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). If he understood him rightly, he understood him to assert that the frequency of elections in municipal matters was an evil. That surely was a new idea in the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, who used to think that the more frequent the elections were in a borough the less there would be of excitement with regard to them, and the more they would express the real popular feeling of the place. He could quite understand the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to the counties where the elections would take place among an agri-

  1857
  cultural population sparsely distributed, and in consequence there would be more difficulties than in the boroughs. It was certainly a new departure for the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to intimate that he intended to do his best to keep the democracy from the too frequent expression of their views.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, it was a new revelation to him that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham should object to the electorate too frequently expressing their opinion. He thought that in the rural districts especially a frequent appeal to the electorate would have a beneficial effect upon the political education of the electors. Frequent appeals to the people would be of great advantage in this respect. The electors were scattered about in the counties, and did not read the daily papers. If they had their emotions stirred by appeals in connection with elections of County Councils, he thought it would have a material effect on the political education of the electors generally, and would excite a vast amount of interest in the work of the County Council. One of the defects of this Bill was that by it local government was too much removed from the doors of the people themselves. He should be glad to see any enactment that would bring it to their doors once a-year, and thus create an interest in the work of the County Council which was governing them. So far as contests were concerned, he believed they would be of much less frequent occurrence if the elections took place annually. As to the matter of expense, his experience was that the most expensive contest that could be entered upon was a contest for the school board; because they had no means ready for carrying on the contest, and every three years they had to provide fresh machinery. That remark was certainly true in regard to the town of Birmingham. Much had been said about obtaining the best men to serve on the Councils, but he believed the best men to be those who came most frequently into contact with the electorate, and, therefore, in the interests of the Councils, as well as of the people themselves, he was in favour of a frequent appeal to the constituents.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Committee should understand
  1858
  exactly what the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was. As he understood it, it was this—that he would bring up a proposal to elect members of the Council for six years, one-third to retire every two years. Was he correct in that understanding?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member was not accurate in saying that he had bound himself to any period of retirement.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the correction. But the most important point he wished to refer to was this—he understood the right hon. Gentleman expressly declined to reconsider the question of area. Now, unless the single-member area was reconsidered, the position would be this—the members of the Council elected for six years, one-third of them to retire every six years; so that each elector would only have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the manner in which the County Councils did their work once in every six years.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that he rose to support, as a County Member, the contention of his hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis). He was glad to note that the First Lord of the Treasury, in reconsidering the provisions of the Bill, did not bind himself to any particular period. He must protest against the adoption of six years as altogether too long, and he was prepared to abide by the decision come to by the Committee last night.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, &c.)said, the Amendment before the Committee was to omit the words "shall then retire altogether." There was an agreement on both sides of the House that those words ought to be omitted. There was a practical agreement that all the members of the Council should not retire together, but that there ought to be some continuity, a portion only retiring at one period, and a portion at another. The question for the Committee to decide was what the period of retirement should be, whether at the end of one year, two years, or any other period? He should suggest that the best course would be that the Government should accept the Amend-

  1859
  ment now before the Committee, and omit the words which all of them desired omitted, and then decide the question as to the period at which the election should take place.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that the discussion which had occurred was extremely unsatisfactory. Last night, in a full House, the Committee thought they had decided an important leading principle of the Bill; but now the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury got up and practically told them that all these questions were again to be considered. They would soon have to pass from this clause to the clause which related to the election of District Councils, and they would be in a position of not knowing what the decision of the House was upon far more important questions closely allied to it. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say that he was ready to consider all the questions which had been decided last night. He hoped that that was not really so, and he trusted that the Committee would have a more distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the exact words that were still left open.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in moving, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "and one elective councillor only shall be elected for each electoral division," said, the Amendment raised a very important question. Every student of history must have been surprised that representative institutions had not been more general, and that when introduced they had not been more successful. One great reason he believed was the system of voting which had been adopted, and he ventured to advocate the present Amendment on two main grounds—first, because it would tend to secure better representation; and, secondly, because it would give the people representatives who would more surely be in accordance with the views of the constituency. What happened under the present system? The elector, no doubt, was nominally free to vote as he liked; but, as a matter of fact, two men were put up—the nominees of some committee or association. Both were, probably, thorough-going partizans. It might well
  1860
  be that neither of them at all represented the views of the elector. But what could he do? Suppose he were a Liberal, but entirely disapproved of the so-called Liberal candidate. To put up a second, even if much more suitable, much more in accordance with the views of the majority of the Liberal electors, would split up the Liberal vote, and, in all probability, lead to defeat. If, on the other hand, the constituencies returned three or five members, there was much greater opportunity for the representation of different opinions. After the announcement just made by the Government, the elections under this Bill would not, it seemed, turn on the temperance question. But it might be taken as an example. Both sides would put up their candidate, and strain every nerve to carry him. Now, though a very important question, this was only one out of many, and all the rest would be excluded. Large constituencies, returning three or five members, would do much to free the electors from the domination of cliques and enable them to exercise an independent judgment. In the second place, he advocated this proposal because it would give a more accurate representation—because it would secure not only a hearing to the minority, but also power to the majority. It was sometimes stated that those who advocated proportional representation had no confidence in the people, and wished to override their will. Those who said so had obviously never mastered the question. Far from wishing in any way to override the will of the majority, one great object of the Amendment was to make sure that the majority should have the power which was their due. That would not be secured under the system proposed in the Bill. For instance, by the Constitution of 1841 Geneva was divided into four constituencies. In the City, as a whole, the Liberals had a large majority; but they were mainly massed in one district of the town, and the result was that, though in a majority, they only carried one constituency, while the Conservatives, though in a minority, were victorious in the other three. Leeds was divided by the last Reform Bill into five districts, each returning a single Member to that House. At the following election the Liberals polled 23,000 votes and the Conservatives 19,000, Yet

  1861
  the Conservative minority secured three seats and the Liberal majority only two. It was evident that if the Liberals had been evenly spread over the whole of Leeds they would have carried every seat by a majority of 20 per cent. Being, however, concentrated in two constituencies, they carried those two by overwhelming majorities of 2,300 in one case and 2,000 in the other, but were defeated in the other three. The Committee would see, therefore, that in such a case the result of an election did not depend so much on the relative numbers polling, but on the manner in which the votes chanced to be divided. With a given superiority in numbers the majority might carry every seat, leaving the minority without a single representative, which, it must surely be admitted, would be unjust, and, therefore, undesirable. On the other hand, as he had shown, the opposite result might, and often would happen, and the minority of electors would obtain a majority of representatives, which would be even more unfortunate. The system proposed in the Bill would, therefore, reduce the representation of local districts to a matter of chance. The majority might entirely exclude the minority from the County Councils, or, on the other hand, they might fail to secure even a majority of representatives. Surely it was ridiculous and discreditable that we should deliberately adopt a mode of election which would thus reduce the result to chance. Moreover, in local government this consideration was, in one respect, of more pressing importance than in Parliamentary elections. The Liberal electors of Leeds were able to console themselves for their disappointments by the knowledge that in other places Liberals secured more than their fair share of representation, though probably this was not so comforting to the candidates themselves. But in elections for local affairs this would not be the case. If an election were fought on Education or Local Option, and a minority of voters secured the majority of representatives, it would be little consolation to the defeated majority to feel that their side had had undue success somewhere else. This Amendment would secure a hearing to the minority, and, what was of even more importance, power to the majority. These were essential to true representa-
  1862
  tion; but neither of them would be secured by the system proposed in the Bill. It was sometimes said that proportional representation would give increased power to "fads." The very reverse was the case. That was the effect of the present system. Two candidates were before the electors. It was known that the contest would be very close. Then came, 100 earnest men—say, perhaps, anti-vaccinationists. They made everything depend on the question in which they felt an intense interest. Their 100 votes, making a difference of 200 in the result, would turn the election, thus giving them undue power of putting pressure on the candidate, a power which, under proportional representation, was greatly reduced. There were other minor, but yet considerable, advantages, such as the avoidance of the necessity for new areas, which, moreover, would require constant revision. He had seen it recently stated that proportional representation might be a very fit subject for a discussion at the Royal Society, but was not of a practical character, and that it was a system which the electors of the country would never grasp. Why, we had had one form of proportional representation, and perhaps the most complicated form, in operation in this country for 18 years in our school board elections. A Committee of the House was appointed in 1885 to inquire into the manner in which it had worked; and Mr. Forster, Sir Francis Sandford, and Mr. Cumin, all agreed that the satisfactory working of school boards was greatly due to the operation of proportional representation. This Amendment did not raise the question of the mode of voting at all; that would be a matter for subsequent consideration. All the Amendment did was to give larger electoral areas. He ventured, then, to recommend the Amendment to the Committee. It would tend to free the electors from the dictation of wire-pullers; to induce the best men to stand; and would give life and energy to the local government of our country.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "and one elective councillor only shall be elected for each electoral division."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and one' stand part of the Clause."
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject of proportional representation, which he understood was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). He must own that the position of those who favoured proportional representation was somewhat prejudiced by the fact that the alternative system of election and retiring by rotation had been accepted by the House. He imagined, however, that there was no Gentleman in the House of Commons who did not maintain that he was anxious to see fair representation given alike to minorities and majorities. Everybody embraced that doctrine, no matter what his politics might be; but he doubted very much whether any hon. Member would maintain that the present system really carried out the doctrine. It could be proved in a few minutes by means of a pencil and a piece of paper that, theoretically at any rate, the system of single-Member constituencies did not give fair proportional representation to all sections of the population. But this was not all, for it could also be shown that the system did not actually result in fair representation. Various illustrations of this fact had been given at different times. When, therefore, it was practically admitted by everybody that, in theory at any rate, the present system did not give them what they all desired, and when it was further admitted—and he supposed it would not be seriously questioned—that it was quite possible to adopt some method by which fair representation would be given, he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen could object to a proposal in favour of proportional representation. It would, no doubt, be urged that such a system would be so exceedingly difficult to understand that voters would inevitably make great mistakes in carrying it out. But he would remind the House of the numerous prophecies which were indulged in two or three year ago, to the effect that labourers would find it extraordinarily difficult to put their cross against the name of the candidate they wished to support in the Election of 1885. Yet, notwithstanding those forebodings, they all knew how extremely small was the proportion of spoiled papers. He believed that uneducated
  1864
  people would be able to carry the proportional representation system into practice with quite as much facility as they carried out the present system. The scheme advocated by the hon. Baronet the Member for London University was not at present before the Committee; but, with the view of doing what little he could to support that scheme, he should vote for the Amendment which the hon. Baronet had moved.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, that, under the present system of voting, minorities had to content themselves with an inferior class of candidates; whereas, under the system of proportional representation, they would have the strongest interest in selecting the strongest man, in the hope that his return would, to some extent, make up for their deficiency in numerical strength. This was not a mere question of theory. The school boards had, no doubt, been very extravagant in their expenditure; but it could not be denied that they had been very efficient. There had been singularly little jobbery in connection with the school boards, and they had shown very considerable efficiency in the management of elementary schools. They had also shown tact, because they had solved the religious difficulty. The late Mr. Forster said that that difficulty would disappear when men found themselves seated round a table, and could meet it face to face. Mr. Forster's prophecy had proved true. In the school board elections attempts were sometimes made to rouse the spirit of religious intolerance; but when the election was over the members of the board, meeting round a table, found that there were among them far more points of agreement than points of difference, and soon discovered a modus vivendi. He thought this had been largely owing to the fact that, under the system of cumulative voting adopted in school board elections, minorities took care to put their best men forward. In view of the experience which had thus been gained of proportional representation—although the school board system was very imperfect in form—he thought that mode of representation was full of hope for the future. It must not be forgotten that the Councils to be created under this Bill would be purely administrative; and, that being so, it

  1865
  was of the utmost importance that each large section of the community should be represented upon them. It was often argued that proportional representation was not required in reference to the House of Commons, because that section of opinion which failed to secure representation in one district obtained it in another. This would, however, be by no means the case in the comparatively small areas contemplated under this Bill. He believed that proportional representation on these Councils would be a great safeguard against jobbery. Probably nobody would deny that the great danger of democratic institutions was the danger of jobbery. The presence on a Board of one strong man who had access to papers, and who knew what was going on, would often have the effect of nipping jobbery in the bud. Those who wished to job feared publicity, and were afraid of a man who was likely to drag their evil practices to light. Those who advocated the representation of minorities claimed that the electoral system should be so arranged that, while the majority ruled, the minority should be heard. He would point out that it was a fallacy to suppose that under the present system the majority necessarily prevailed. That system gave enormous advantages to small minorities. Every Member of that House knew how great was the power of minorities when composed of men fanatically attached to a particular doctrine, willing to sacrifice everything else to carry their point, and ready to give their votes to those who would bid the highest for them. It often happened, especially where a minority was regarded as a power, that a candidate was bound to pledge himself to support some "fad" which the majority of his supporters emphatically condemned. The system of cumulative voting had worked well throughout the country, and the plan proposed by his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) was of the simplest character. In Denmark it had worked for over 30 years with great smoothness, and he did not suppose that anybody in Denmark thought of overthrowing the system. All that was now asked was that the Committee should accept the principle of minority representation, leaving the details to be settled at a subsequent stage.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid, there were several reasons why he felt bound to support the Amendment. In the first place, he regarded. it as most important, in the interest of the future efficiency of the County Councils, that the electors should vote for candidates primarily because they were sensible men of business, and not because they were the nominees of any particular Party. If the system of single-member constituencies were adopted, it would inevitably lead to the adoption by candidates of the propaganda of political Parties, and the individual merits of men as representatives of the ratepayers would be disregarded. In the next place, if the Committee were going to adopt a plan for the periodical retirement of members of County Councils, in accordance with what appeared to be the general wish of hon. Members, it would be desirable to have, at least, three members for each constituency. In the third place, he thought that some system of proportional representation ought to be adopted. He confessed that he could not vote for the actual scheme which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) had put on the Paper. He was certain that it was so obscure in its wording that it would lend itself to misrepresentation, and, however honestly the officials did their work, they would be open to the charge of having manipulated the returns. Why should the Committee not resort to the system that had worked so well in the school board elections for some years past? He knew that the common argument against the system of proportional representation was that it was un-English. It had, however, ceased to be un-English since it had been in use on the school boards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had said that any system of proportional representation was unsuited for the rough and tumble character of English political life. He (Mr. Whitmore) did not see why we should always have rough and tumble even in political elections. The Corrupt Practices Act had introduced a great change in the whole conduct of such elections, and this change had been gratefully acquiesced in by the Conservatives. He believed that in the elections which would take

  1867
  place under this Bill there need be nothing of a rough and tumble character, and that as the cumulative vote worked perfectly well in school board elections it would work well in County Council elections. He was himself most heartily in accord with the general principle advocated by the hon. Baronet the Member for London University, and he should certainly do all he could to secure, not that the real voice of public opinion should in any way be silenced, but that public opinion, in all its modifications, should, as far as possible, receive adequate representation on the County Councils.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had to ask pardon of the Committee for rising to speak on the same side as those who had preceded him, but he wished to address himself to the question from a standpoint which had not been adopted by any of them. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was in his place, he would deal with the arguments put forward by him when the question was under discussion in that House on a previous occasion. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great care on the 15th of April, and had understood him to urge that such a proposition as was embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for London University was against the principle on which our whole system of popular representative government was based. He should venture to challenge that assertion, and to show that the right hon. Gentleman had either misunderstood or misrepresented the principle on which representative popular government was based. He had also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the system of the representation of minorities was one by which the views of the majority would not be put in practice, and, further, that those who advocated minority representation did so in the belief that the majority of the people were always inclined to go wrong, and did not know what was best for them. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would deal with these contentions in turn. In the first place, he asserted that the principle of the representation of minorities was essentially democratic. It was not a new matter for him to advocate the representation of minorities. John Stuart Mill was his teacher on that sub-
  1868
  ject 30 years ago, and John Stuart Mill certainly represented the opinion of the people of England more thoroughly and instructed that opinion more usefully than some of those who had set themselves up as leaders of the democracy in modern times. Those who supported the principle of the representations of minorities did not ask that the majority should be overruled; but they did ask that the majority should rule not by mere brute force, but in a spirit of intelligence and reason. They felt it was the duty of the minority to bow to the decision of the majority, whatever that decision might be; but they claimed that the decision of the majority could only be intelligently given after the minority had been heard. A minority could only be heard in the Legislative Council of the nation when it had sufficient numerical strength to entitle it to representation, and the majority could only decide intelligently when the Representatives of the minority had stated their views to the House. He could understand that there might be some who did not wish the majority to think before they decided, and who were content with the blind rule of a majority wound up from some centre by a skilfully contrived key, provided that they had the key in their own hands. He was not of opinion that such a system had ever been for the benefit of the people. The proper education of the people in political matters could only be secured by allowing minorities to be heard. It was for this reason that he supported the Amendment, and that he appealed to the Government to adopt it, if only to provide the means of experimenting in the direction of the representation of minorities. He knew that those with whom he was associated, and for whom he might claim most right to speak, were safe in their numbers. Numbers were, however, but a poor protection to the people when the numbers expressed their view without having more than one side of a question presented to them. It might be said that minorities could express their views by means of pamphlets and public meetings; but the best place, and the true place, for the expression of opinions for or against legislation was the House of Commons. He hoped that those who objected to this Amendment would not do so on the pretence that it was not democratic. The proposition which it

  1869
  embodied was really the most democratic that could be submitted to the House—namely, that the majority should rule, but that they should consider before they judged, and that their decision should be based not on the blind strength of their numbers, but on an intelligent appreciation of the points at issue.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he took it for granted that the Government would oppose the Amendment. The subject which it raised was not a new one, but had been before Parliament for a great many years. It was discussed in connection with the Reform Bill of 1867, when a strong attempt was made to introduce a provision to the effect that Parliament should, somehow or other, be elected by the minority of the people. It was thought that time that, on the whole, minorities were always wiser than majorities. Of course, that was a doctrine which, for the moment, it would be to the interest of the Opposition to maintain; but, remembering that minorities developed into majorities, he adhered to the old opinion that majorities should prevail. Mr. Disraeli described the various schemes of proportional representation, and all the other ingenious conundrums, as he called them, which were then brought forward, as a means of introducing crotchety men into Parliament. The point raised by the Amendment was fought out upon the Reform Bill of two years ago. The principle was carried out much further in that Bill, The proposal his hon. Friend was making was one which was absolutely contrary to the repeated decisions of Parliament. He did not desire to occupy the time of the Committee, but he was quite certain that on this question the Government would adhere to the proposals they had made, which were consistent with the course Parliament had taken, and which they themselves took upon the County Government Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was quite right in assuming that the Government proposed to adhere to the proposals they made in the Bill; but, although the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were in agreement upon this point, he did not quite understand some of the
  1870
  remarks the right hon. Gentleman had made. He had great sympathy with the object which the hon. Gentleman desired to see taken up, that minorities should be adequately represented, if it was possible to organize any system by which that representation could be properly attained. But, so far as the proposals of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) were concerned, they had, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had very justly said, been more than once before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons had, without any hesitation, expressed views adverse to them. It would be quite out of place for the Government to endeavour to re-open this very controversy again, and to set up a system in respect to local institutions which had been deliberately rejected by the House of Commons in reference to Parliamentary elections. He did not believe for a moment that, whatever might be the merits of the proposal of the hon. Baronet, the advocates of proportional representation had yet succeeded in making the smallest impression upon the public mind with reference to their proposal. And, without going over the difficulties which had always been raised, difficulties which proportional representation involved, it was obvious that those difficulties, such as they were, would be greatly aggravated if there was one method of voting at Parliamentary elections and another method of voting at the elections of the County Councils. If there were no difficulties which the mind of the ordinary voter might not be unable to overcome, certainly there would be difficulties created in the mind of the rural voter if he had to give his vote for a Representative in Parliament in one way, and to give it for a representative on the County Council in another way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had spoken of single-member areas as being opposed to the interests of minority representation. The Government, however, regarded the single-member areas as in some sense securing a modified form of minority representation. It was perfectly clear how that had been brought about. In the case of a double-member constituency it was quite certain that the majority would be able to return both members; but, if they were to split the area into two and to have one member for each,

  1871
  it was conceivable that they might have a majority in a different direction in one of those areas. That being so, they secured minority representation, whereas, if two votes were given by all the voters in the double constituency, the minority would not be represented at all. Therefore, they thought that by single-member areas they were making provision for securing a modified form of minority representation. His hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) seemed to think that with three-member areas there would be less chance of conflict upon Party lines. He did not know whether that was the experience of gentlemen who were connected with the Town Councils, or who had experience of Local Bodies; but he rather fancied that if there were to be a contest at all on Party lines, it was just as likely to take place in three-member areas as in single-member areas, so that he was afraid the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) had not the merit his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitmore) seemed to think it had. There were many advantages in maintaining single-member areas; they were the areas for Parliamentary elections, and the Government did not believe there was any reason why they should not be the areas for the election of County Councils. They, therefore, adopted this proposal quite apart from the argument used by those in favour of the proposal of the hon. Baronet for three-member areas. He sincerely regretted it was not in his power to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he regretted very much that this important subject was discussed while the Chairman (Mr. Courtney) was in the Chair. He felt the arguments in favour of proportional representation would, if he might say so without any reflection upon those who had spoken, have been put before the House far more ably, and far more conclusively, if the hon. Gentleman had not been debarred from taking part in the discussion by his occupancy of the Chair. He (Mr. Sydney Gedge) wished to say a few words in support of the Amendment, not, of course, with the smallest idea of being able to supply the place the Chairman might have so ably filled. He hoped that before long they might hear the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) taking up
  1872
  the same side, for he well remembered in December, 1884, or January, 1885, seeing from a placard that the hon. and learned Gentleman was to address a meeting in favour of proportional representation. He regretted very much that the Government had met the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) with a simple non possumus. He hoped that inasmuch as the Amendment had been supported by Liberal Unionists, and by Liberals who were not Unionists, as well as by many of the Government's own supporters, the Government might have been induced to accept it. They heard, in the first place, from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that it would be puzzling, especially in the rural districts, if there were elections for Parliamentary Representatives under one system, and elections for the representatives of Local Bodies under another system. He (Mr. Sydney Gedge) had a great deal more trust in the people of the rural districts, as well as in the people of the towns, than to adopt such an argument. He not only trusted their hearts; he had not only that sort of confidence which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was so fond of talking about; but he trusted their intellects and common sense. He believed that the man who was incapable of discriminating between two systems of voting was not fit to have a vote at all. Experience, however, had shown that the working men of this country were perfectly able to comprehend the proposed system; trial elections had taken place, and the working classes had shown themselves quite capable of understanding it. Was it to be argued that the people in this country could not understand a system of proportional representation, when for 30 years it had been in operation in Denmark? Under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and the late Mr. Forster, the system was introduced, in 1870, of several members of School Boards being returned for each constituency by a cumulative vote, and of there really being proportional representation; and why should they be unable to do that in 1888 which was done perfectly well in 1870? It was a poor commentary upon the results of the Education Act that

  1873
  those who had been educated under it for 18 years should be less competent to vote intellectually on the new system than those who had not been educated. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, with a Toryism for which he would not have given the right hon. Gentleman credit, was quite shocked at the idea that in 1888 Parliament should do anything it resolved not to do a few years ago. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would apply that maxim to the proposal to give Home Rule to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman and all his Friends up to three years ago were totally opposed to the concession of Home Rule to Ireland; and, according to the right hon. Gentleman's theory, that was a reason why they should not vote for it now. There was a different Parliament now; there was a Parliament more in touch with the people; and they were not to be told, especially by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if a thing was good in itself, they were not to do it because Parliament in former years had decided against it. Then they really seemed unable to see what were the merits of the proposed system. The right hon. Gentleman called it an ingenious plan by which Parliament was to be elected by the minority of the people. If he had taken the trouble to look into the matter he would have seen that this system would prevent the minority ruling. There was no system which so thoroughly secured the due representation of the majority as the system of proportional representation. Its meaning was representation in proportion to the numbers holding different opinions, and therefore the majority in the country must of necessity, under some one of the proposed systems, obtain a majority in representation, or there would not be proportional representation. Under the prevent system representation was very largely a matter of chance or haphazard. Let them assume that the people of a town, numbering 10,000, were gathered in a plain in order to vote on different questions; that they then found they were too numerous; that the questions could not be properly heard by all of them; and that, therefore, they divided themselves into batches of 100 each, each of which batches they agreed should elect a representative. The people would know perfectly well that if they were to
  1874
  split themselves up in this way by lot, or by haphazard, just as they might happen to stand, it might happen that those who were of one way of thinking might crowd together, and thus enable the minority to return a majority of the representatives. Such a result had occurred in England. He remembered that in 1874, when the Conservatives came into power with a majority of 50, there were elaborate calculations made to show that they were really in a minority in the country, and that it was through the happy or unhappy accident of the Radicals being crowded together more than the Conservatives that the Radical strength had been thrown away, and that the minority in the country had returned a majority to Parliament. That, of course, might happen under the single-seat system even more so than under the old system, but if they adopted the plan proposed by the hon. Baronet they rendered such a result almost impossible. Every set of opinions would be adequately represented, and, therefore, he trusted the Amendment would receive the assent of the Committee. There was one other point he wished particularly to mention, and it was that under the present single-seat system enormous and undue power was given to those who held strong views on any one particular subject, such, for instance, as vaccination, far greater power than their numbers warranted, because it might happen that five or 10 electors might be able to turn an election. It was well known that these small bodies went to weak-kneed candidates, and obtained their support from fear of losing their seats, and that they were then bound to vote in accordance with the promise they had given, which vote appeared to be supported by a large majority of the constituencies, while, in reality, it was but the wish of a small body in each. Under the proposed system these bodies could concentrate their votes, and thus, possibly, be able to return one out of three or one out of four of the candidates. As a matter of fact, they would be proportionally represented; they would have their due weight; they would have the weight which their numbers and influence entitled them to, and the majority would be in the same satisfactory position.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he was one of those who

  1875
  were very strongly of opinion that the House of Commons did right, when it considered the question of Parliamentary reform, to adopt the single-Member seat system, and to put aside the proposal of proportional representation. But when that was said and done he did not think the arguments then used, which his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had re-quoted, had anything whatever to do with the question they were discussing that afternoon. The question of the proportional representation of minorities in respect to local matters had never been brought before the House of Commons in a concrete form, such as they were discussing on the present occasion. Therefore, it seemed to him that it was no argument on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say the House of Commons had discussed this question over and over again in reference to Parliamentary elections, and had decided that in regard to Parliamentary elections they would not adopt the principle of proportional representation. He (Mr. Sydney Buxton) had not yet, in the speeches of those who were opposed to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock), heard anything by way of an attempt to meet the difficulty of how they were going, on the new Councils, to obtain a varied representation such as was desirable in local affairs. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) truly said that the elections in municipalities at present turned far too much on questions of Party politics, and in respect to the Amendment they had just discussed the argument had turned on the advisability of obtaining the services of those persons interested in local matters who had great knowledge of administration rather than of questions of policy. But, unless they adopted some form of minority representation in respect to these Councils, it was pretty clear to anyone conversant with local districts, that the contests would continue to turn on Party politics; and that they would not obtain the services of many admirable administrators who otherwise would desire to stand, and who would certainly have a fair chance of being
  1876
  elected. His right hon. Friend the Member for Derby said that all our institutions were founded on the theory of single seats; but he quite ignored the fact that the school board elections were based on an entirely opposite theory. He (Mr. Sydney Buxton) was not altogether in favour of the cumulative vote system, and he could not help thinking that they would have done better had they adopted some other seat system of minority voting in regard to school boards. The only argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board against the Amendment, so far as he (Mr. Sydney Buxton) could gather, was that if they gave some form of proportional representation to these Local Bodies they would confuse the minds of the electors, who, he said, would have to vote one way in Parliamentary elections and another way in County Council elections. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was aware that that was the case now in all boroughs where there were school boards, and in many rural districts in which school boards were elected. If the people were so confused in this matter already, he thought it was greatly to be wondered at that there had been such good school boards as there had been in the past. He would like to hear on behalf of the Government, and those who opposed this Amendment, some real reason given as to how they would get over the difficulty as to these elections turning upon Party politics, or upon some question which might arise at the moment. Looking at it from the point of view of the advisability of getting the best administrators in the Local Bodies, and not because he was enamoured of this particular form of minority vote, he should support the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTONsaid, he regretted extremely to learn, from the tone of the speeches which had been delivered on this question, that the political element would probably be introduced into the new County Councils, from which the late system of government was so happily free. But he hoped that the system, which would eventually find favour in the House, would be that of minority representation, based upon the old three-cornered constituencies, a system which worked very well in the past, and which,

  1877
  he believed, would work very well in all sorts of elections, whether for Parliamentary Representatives or for the representatives upon County Councils. The system of having three members for each constituency, and two votes for each elector, certainly was a system which adequately provided for the due representation of the minority. He simply put this notion forward now as he had not spoken of it before, and he trusted the Government might see their way to adopt it.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, there was one practical consideration which had not been touched upon by any previous speaker, and which seemed to him to be absolutely conclusive in favour of the Government view. They were not legislating for towns, but for country districts. What they wished to secure was the representation upon the County Councils of the definite local wants and wishes of definite and small local areas. He feared that, under the system of proportional representation now proposed, it would be impossible to secure an adequate and just representation of these small local areas, and that, he thought, was quite conclusive in favour of the proposal of the Government. He did not think that they need enter into the question of the possibility of the agricultural population understanding the proportional system of representation. He thought fears in that direction had been greatly exaggerated. But any such system was incompatible with the direct representation of distinctly local requirements, and the object was best met by the single-member district plan of the Government.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had been able to be in his place that afternoon, he (Mr. Baring) would have contented himself with giving his vote in silence as his conscience bade him. But, as the right hon. Baronet was unfortunately unable to attend, and had at a meeting of the Essex magistrates held in the month of March, undertook, at the unanimous request of between 50 and 60 magistrates, to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock), he (Mr. Baring) felt bound to speak. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury
  1878
  (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Ritchie) knew perfectly well that Essex had not, for many years past at all events, been an especially Radical county, and that the Essex magistrates were not biassed in that direction in their views. But the Resolution which was moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex was supported with equal strength by Gentlemen of opinions opposed to those which he himself held. It was no Party question, and the Resolution adopted was to the effect that single-member constituencies would tend to the exclusion of many persons who would be desirable members of County Councils, and that it would be wise that some provision should be made for proportionate representation. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Sydney Buxton) they did not feel themselves bound to pin themselves to any particular form of proportional representation; they were prepared to accept three or five member districts where each person could only give one vote, or they were prepared to accept a system under which people could give two votes in three-cornered constituencies, or they were prepared to accept the proposal which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) had so eloquently, and he believed so intelligibly, defined. The fact, however, stood on record that the magistrates of a suburban county assembled, with no opposition whatever, passed a resolution in the sense of the Amendment now moved; and even if he could vote against it conscientiously, he should feel bound to vote in the sense of the body with whom he had acted for so many years.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must confess that he was not quite certain whether the fact that the resolution referred to by the hon. Gentleman was supported by 60 magistrates of a suburban county, who had themselves no representative capacity whatever, would be a recommendation to those who were now endeavouring to set up a popular representative system of government. He agreed with some, at all events, of the objections which had been put forward by the supporters of this Amendment, and he could not agree with all of them. He agreed, however, that it was very desirable that on these

  1879
  new representative bodies minorities as well as majorities should find a place, and he agreed also that it would be a great misfortune if under any system men of great capacity for dealing with local affairs should be excluded. He did not, however, at all agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Buxton) and other speakers who were so exceedingly anxious to exclude Imperial politics from elections for Local Bodies, and he might say that on this point he had had some little experience, because in Birmingham they had really lived under both systems. In the old time the Birmingham Town Council was an entirely non-political body. What was the result? It never was a corrupt body; no one ever brought against the Birmingham Town Council any charge of corruption; but it certainly became an extremely inefficient body, and the reason was that there was so little interest taken in the elections that anybody who was willing to serve could get the nomination of a few people who were locally influential. Then came the time when politics were introduced into the Town Council, not by the Party to which he belonged, but by the opposite Party. But he confessed he welcomed the introduction, because the immediate result was that the elections became very much more interesting to the constituency, a very much larger number of voters, almost as many as in the Parliamentary election, took part in the elections, and a better class of candidates stood for the local government. He thought it would be generally admitted by all Parties that now the Corporation of Birmingham afforded a good example for Bodies conducting local government. Having had this practical experience, he was not at all afraid of the introduction of Imperial politics into the election of these Bodies. He believed that if Imperial politics were introduced, as they would be into the elections of the new County Councils—he was perfectly certain that, do what they might, they would not be able to keep them out—they would find on the whole a better class of persons anxious to serve than if the elections were exclusively confined to purely sanitary and local questions. He agreed that the new Bodies should be thoroughly representative, and that men of ability should not be excluded from them. It was because he believed that the present
  1880
  system had roughly secured both those objects, and that it secured them much better than this alternative system would, that he objected to these curious and complicated devices for securing the representation of minorities. One thing he wanted the House to remark. They had had a succession of speeches in favour of proportional representation, but every one of the speakers had said that he did not pledge himself to any particular system; but that was the very crux of the whole matter. He and others wanted to know what it was that hon. Gentlemen really proposed. It was because every plan of this kind had been shown to be open to grave objections that he opposed the Amendment. Those Members who, speaking in favour of the Amendment, said they were not pledged to this or that plan were always found to be voting for any plan which was laid before the House. They admitted there were grave objections to the different proposals made, yet they invariably supported them. They supported, for instance, minority representation in the form of three-cornered constituencies which had conspicuously failed, and for which no one had now a good word to say. They supported the cumulative vote for school boards, and although they admitted the system was a very imperfect one his hon. Friend thought that on the whole it had been a conspicuous success. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: Not a conspicuous success—a success.] He (Mr. Chamberlain) thought it had been a most inconspicuous success. There would be no doubt as to the comparative merits of school boards and Town Councils, although when the Education Act was passed and a matter of the strongest possible interest—namely, the odium theologicum—was thrown among the constituencies, the greatest possible interest was evinced in the elections, and persons of considerable distinction took part on both sides in the work. He ventured to say that the average throughout the country had since then been deteriorating, and that at the present time the competition for seats was not so good in regard to school boards as it was for Town Councils. Under these circumstances he thought they should be content with what they had. The present system after all, worked well. There were cases of occasional failure, cases where the

  1881
  majority had not been fairly represented; but surely it was better to have a system of this kind, which he held had worked well, than to apply a system upon which its supporters could not possibly agree, each one having in his hands a favourite system of his own, which he could not get a single other person to support when he brought it forward.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) without the slightest intention of following him into his ulterior designs in favour of minority representation. He looked at this matter from a Metropolitan point of view. Would the Committee consider for a moment the application of the single-member rule to the Metropolis? The Metropolis was represented in the House of Commons by about 60 Members; they were at present in the dark as to what the number in the County Councils for London would be; but he thought he might take it that the number could not possibly fall below 120, and that it was very much more likely to come near 220. If he was right, it followed that the constituency of a County Councillor for London would be about one-third of that of a London Member in the House of Commons. The average proportion of a London constituency was something between 60,000 and 70,000, so that it followed that a County Councillor for London would represent a population of something like 20,000 people, and a population of 20,000 people contracted together into a very narrow area. He thought that constituencies so small, and, if he might use the expression, so workable as these, would not be able to return representatives who would be likely to have the qualifications necessary for administering the affairs of this great City.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he did not think that the progress of the Bill was very much promoted by discussing questions of fancy franchises. There had been many discussions at different times in the House on the question of proportional representation; but he was quite willing to admit that he had never been able to regard any one of the proposals as intelligible. He did not think that in the democracy, whom the pro-
  1882
  posals in this Bill were intended to interest, this project and these fancy franchises would present any very enlightening effect. What the mass of the people desired was something that was plain, and was to be understood. He had no wish to see minorities crushed, but he agreed that when people were in a minority they must make use of argument and reason to convert their minority into a majority. That was a principle which was perfectly plain and simple; it had been the basis of the whole of our system of popular representation. If they adopted one of these fancy franchises which had emanated at different times, but which he was glad had never made any great headway, he was afraid that in the attempt to heal the ills they had they would soon find themselves landed in others they knew not of.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he merely rose to adduce one argument against this proposal, which, so far as he knew, had not hitherto been raised. As he understood, the Government had wisely intimated their intention of adopting the principle of periodical retirement, and one reason why he intended to vote against the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) was that it was impossible to work any system of minority representation concurrently with periodical retirement. He thought it was sufficiently obvious that if they had periodical retirement they could not have minority representation, and he could not but think that that argument was one which ought to have weight with those who, like himself, would on other grounds be anxious to give way to the opinions of the minority. He did not think that the school boards afforded the analogy that some hon. Members seemed to think. He should be very sorry to see the minority principle done away with in school boards, because there the religious element and other questions made it so desirable that small minorities should have some special representation. But the case of the County Councils was wholly different, especially since the Government had consented to adopt the principle of periodical retirement.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he protested against the introduction of Party politics in municipal elections. He thanked God they had nothing of

  1883
  that kind in Scotland. It would be the greatest misfortune to introduce into our municipal elections Parliamentary Party politics, and any system that would keep them out would, in his opinion, be of advantage. He would like to see the lion and the lamb of politics lie down together in matters of Local Government. He thought that if there was to be periodical retirement it would be of great advantage to have the members elected by wards, which system was in operation in Scotch burghs, and had been found to work well. He should, for this reason, support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, he regretted that, out of so many Members who had addressed the House, the majority had been Members representing borough or town interests, and that hon. Gentlemen representing County Divisions had spoken so little on this important subject. As representing a large County Division, he was extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was in accordance with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, although they had agreed on this subject from different points of view, because, whereas the right hon. Member for Derby safeguarded the rights of a possible majority, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, while safeguarding the rights of the majority, was also safeguarding the rights of a possible minority. The point which he ventured to press on the Committee was that of single districts. If the Committee accepted the Amendment, they would get a very much wider area for the electorate and the elected; and when they considered how difficult it would be for the poorer class to be represented on the County Council, and that it would add greatly to the difficulty of a member standing for a County Council if they were to increase the area of election, it would make it impossible for anyone but the richer classes to stand for election. For these reasons he was extremely glad that the Government had stated their intention of adhering to their original Resolution.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he felt very strongly on this question. He had not been much
  1884
  influenced by the arguments adduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University, and by several of his supporters, because, with every desire to comprehend those arguments, he had scarcely been able to hear a single word which fell from their lips. He begged to say that the ears of Members on those Benches were not microphones, and, as he had stated, they were unable to hear a single word that had been uttered in support of the Amendment. He, therefore, fell back upon the very able speech delivered some weeks back by their talented Chairman (Mr. Courtney) in favour of minority representation. He had heard all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He had a great respect for that right hon. Gentleman, who was one of those healthy and robust politicians that he and a great many men belonging to his Profession admired. But he did not agree with his arguments; and he thought that he held too strongly to the opinion that because single-member districts had been approved in Parliamentary representation it should be approved in elections for County Councils. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chan-fling) said he liked definite small local areas. Now, his answer to that was that definite small local areas would to a certainty return definite small local men; and just as it was found in county representation that large single-member districts, as a rule, returned large-minded men, with some exceptions opposite—[Laughter]—so he considered that large local areas in counties would give larger-minded men than smaller local areas. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham might bear in mind that small local areas had already small Local Authorities; but he did not want such men to come on the County Councils; he wanted men of superior intelligence, men who would take a larger view of business matters and questions affecting the county than smaller men. He would like to know how many County Councillors the Government were going to allot to each county? He would take his own county (Hampshire) which he did not represent,

  1885
  but with which he was perfectly familiar. In that county there were 14 Divisions, of one of which he was Chairman; and if they assigned three Councillors to each of the 14 Divisions, that would give 42 Councillors for the county of Hampshire. He believed that three members returned for the larger Divisions of the county would produce better men than if the same number of Councillors came from 42 smaller districts. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for North Sussex (Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy) with reference to the retirement portion of the scheme, when he said that there would be more difficulty in working a three-cornered system. There was another point which he would press on the attention of the Government, and which had not been alluded to in that day's discussion. If the Bill passed in its present shape and on its present lines, he thought they would would be laying the foundations on which a future Bill for Local Government in Ireland would certainly be framed. He looked forward to that with very great fear—that was to say, he thought, if single-member districts were adhered to in England, they would have to be introduced in Ireland; and, with the present state of feeling in that latter country, he greatly feared that the Nationalist Party would collar the whole representation, and that the loyal minority would be nowhere. Therefore, he said that the Government ought to give their grave attention to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, whose arguments he did not hear. He would like to make one appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the Government would adhere to their views. That was quite right, but Governments were eminently squeezable; and what he asked was, were hon. Members on these Benches free to vote as their consciences dictated? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed at an appeal to conscience, but had they no consciences? As he had said, Governments were eminently squeezable, and he desired to know whether hon. Members were to vote upon the Amendment, on the understanding that, if it were carried, the Government would loyally embrace it, and frame their Bill accordingly?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 372; Noes 94: Majority 278.

  AYES

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Coghill, D. H.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Colman, J. J.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Compton, F.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Conway, M.

  Aird, J.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Allison, R. A.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Cossham,

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Cox, J. R.

  Asher, A.

  Craig, J.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Asquith, H. H.

  Craven, J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crawford, D.

  Austin, J.

  Crawford, W.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G.S.

  Crilly, D.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Cross, H. S.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Crossley, E.

  Ballantine, W. H. W.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Barnes, A.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Barran, J.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Darling, C. J.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Deasy, J.

  Bazley-White, J.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Dillon, J.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Dodds, J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Donkin, R. S.

  Bigwood, J.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Duncombe, A.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Bright, Jacob

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Bright, W. L.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Elton, C. I.

  Brooks, Sir W. C.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  Brown, A. H.

  Esslemont, P.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Evans, F. H.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Evershed, S.

  Burt, T.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Caine, W. S.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Cameron, J.

  Feilden, Lt -Gen. R. J.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Fellowes, A. E.

  Carew, J. L.

  Fenwick, C.

  Carmarthen, Marq. Of

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir.J.

  Causton, R. K.

  Cavan, Earl of

  Finch, G. H.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Finucane, J.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Channing, F. A.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Charrington, S.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.

  Flower, C.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Cobb, H. P.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Forwood, A. B.

  1887

  Foster, Sir B. W.

  Kilbride, D.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Kimber, H.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  King, H. S.

  Fry, T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Knowles, L.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Kynoch, G.

  Gardner, H.

  Labouchere, H.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Lalor, R.

  Lambert, C.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

  Giles A.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Gill, T. P.

  Leahy, J.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Leake, R.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Godson, A. F.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Legh, T. W.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

  Goschen, right hon. G. J.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Greenall, Sir G.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Greene, E.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Llewellyn, E. H

  Gully, W. C.

  Long, W. H.

  Hall, A. W.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Hall, C.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  MacInnes, M.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

  M'Arthur, A.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Harrington, E.

  M'Donald, P.

  Harris, M.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Hayden, L. P.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Heath, A. R.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Heaton, J. H.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Madden, D. H.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Hoare, E. B.

  Marum, E. M.

  Hoare, S.

  Matthews, right hon. H.

  Hooper, J.

  Hubbard, hon. E.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C

  Mayne, T.

  Hunter, Sir W. G.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Milvain, T.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  More, R. J.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Morgan, right hon. G. O.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Joicey, J.

  Morley, A.

  Jordan, J.

  Mount, W. G.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

  Mowbray, right hon. Sir J. R.

  Kenrick, W.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T

  Mundella, right hon. A. J.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Kerans, F. H,

  Murdoch, C. T.

  1888

  Murphy, W. M.

  Samuelson, Sir B.

  Newark, Viscount

  Samuelson, G.B.

  Newnes, G.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Schwann, C. E.

  Nolan, J.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Norris, E. S.

  Sexton, T.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Shaw, T.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Norton, R.

  Sheehy, D.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Sheil, E.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  O'Connor, A.

  Simon, Sir J.

  O'Connor, J.

  Slagg, J.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  O'Hea, P.

  Smith, S.

  O'Keeffe, F. A.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Parker, C. S.

  Stack, J.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Pearce, Sir W.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Pease, A. E.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Pease, H F.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Storey, S.

  Pickard, B.

  Sullivan, D.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Summers, W.

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Sykes, C.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Theobald, J.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Thomas, A.

  Portman, hon. E. B.

  Thomas, D. A.

  Potter, T. B.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Powell, F. S.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Power, P. J.

  Trotter, Col. H. J.

  Price, T. P.

  Tuite, J.

  Priestley, B.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Pugh, D.

  Vincent, Col. C. E. H.

  Puleston, Sir J. H.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Wallace, R.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Wardle, H.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Watson, J.

  Reid, R. T.

  Wayman, T.

  Rendel, S.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Richard, H.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Richardson, T.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Whitbread, S.

  Ritchie, right hon. C. T.

  Whitley, E.

  Williams, A. J.

  Roberts, J.

  Wilson, I.

  Robertson, E.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Woodhead, J.

  Robinson, T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Roe, T.

  Wright, C.

  Rollit, Sir A. K.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Ross, A. H.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  TELLERS.

  Rowntree, J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Russell, Sir C.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Russell, Sir G.

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Baring, T. C.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Bond, G. H.

  1889

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Lees, E.

  Leighton, S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Lyell, L.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Mallock, R.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Morrison, W.

  Corbett, J.

  Noble, W.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Cozens-Hardy. H. H.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Power, R.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Rankin, J.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Rathbone, W.

  Ellis, J.

  Reed, H. B.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Round, J.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Royden, T. B.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Russell, T. W.

  Fry, L.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Gedge, S.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Gray, C. W.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Smith, A.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

  Stokes, G. G.

  Sutherland, T.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Townsend, F.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Howell, G.

  Webster, R. G.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Wiggin, H.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kenny, C. S.

  Knatchbull- Hugessen, H. T.

  TELLERS.

  Grimston Viscount

  Lafone, A.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, leave out "elective."—(Sir Roper Lethbridge.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had intimated, on the discussion the night before as to casual vacancies in the County Council, that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper would be accepted by the Government. He did not, therefore, intend to detain the Committee or enter into a fuller explanation. He had only to express his great satisfaction that the Government had seen their way, last night, to give up what seemed to him to be one of the most reactionary portions of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, leave out from the word "and" to the word "councillor," in line 5.—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was quite true that he had undertaken to accept an Amendment by which casual vacancies would be filled up by election. But there was one kind of vacancy which he thought the Committee would consider better filled up by the Councillors themselves. He, therefore, proposed to insert words in the Sub-section which would make it read thus—
  "The casual vacancies among the elective councillors, which occur otherwise than by the election of the vacating councillor to be an alderman, or which arise within twelve months before the ordinary date for the triennial election of councillors, shall be filled by the election by the Council of a person qualified to be a councillor."
  He thought that would meet the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act if the Committee would agree to it. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would be prepared to accept what he suggested.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think they ought in any way to tamper with the principle of having the members of the County Councils elected by the people. It would be possible under the proposal for any member of a County Council, who made up his mind to retire 12 months before his period of office terminated, to select one of his friends, get him elected by the County Council, and so secure for him an advantage when the popular election came on. That would be a great disadvantage to the elected element of the County Council, and it would, moreover, lead to the jobbery which it ought to be the desire of every Member of the House to do all that lay in his power to prevent.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he should like to have one point explained with referrence to the proposed Amendment. When an Alderman retired from the County Council, was that vacancy thereby created to be filled up by election from the members? If that were

  1891
  so, he should not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, so far as the Aldermen were concerned, the election would take place under the terms of the Municipal Elections Act; that was to say, the vacancy would be filled up by the electors, and the only case in which vacancies would be filled up by the Council was that in which it occurred other than by the retirement of an Alderman within 12 months of a fresh election.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he would suggest that this Amendment depended greatly upon the terms upon which a member of the Council was to be elected. If a Councillor was only to be elected for three years, to take 12 months out of the term of election seemed to him rather too much. He did not think the Committee would do right to agree to any term of co-optation in the interval of the triennial election. If the term were six years, the rule might be of advantage; but if the period was to remain at three years, he, for one, could not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, as far as he could see, the feeling on that side of the House was not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, he wished to point out that by Sub-section (b) it was provided that the elective Councillors should be elected for the term of three years. It was now proposed that there should be a selection for casual vacancies within 12 months of the general election by the Council, and consequently a councillor, created by the Council, would continue in office for three years, if the clause were to stand as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it appeared that these councillors would number about 100, and the Government having given way on the question of filling up vacancies, he wished to point out that, as it might be supposed, most of the men elected to the Councils would be men of some age, the mortality among them might be expected to be at least two or three in the course of a year. That would imply that in every county there would be an election every four or six months. He thought that vacancies had better be filled up by the County
  1892
  Council itself to avoid these incessant elections in each county; and he expressed his regret that the Government had again changed their mind without so much as giving the Committee notice of their intention to do so.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, for himself, he thought that as regarded the mere question of county elections, it would be well to leave it to stand as it did in the Municipal Corporations Act, and to omit the sub-section altogether. But they had to consider the opinion of the constituencies, and he thought that no constituency would thank the House for obliging them to have an election within three months of a General Election. As his right hon. Friend had said, they were left in the dark as to the term for which the Councils were to be elected, and it was therefore very difficult to determine the best course to take. But he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that if he would embody such words as he (Mr. Hobhouse) had placed on the Paper, it would probably meet the views of the constituencies, and he thought no Member of the House would then raise any serious objection.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whether there was to be any departure from the distinct pledge of last night with regard to filling up vacancies; and, secondly, whether there was to be any departure from the custom, not only in Parliamentary, but in Municipal elections? If, for instance, a General Election were to take place in three months from the retirement of a member, what would the constituencies say, if they were told that they must remain unrepresented because the General Election was to be held in a few months? He said that they could not lay down any lines with regard to time, because it would involve them in difficulty whether that line was of 12 months, three months, or six months. A man might time his resignation so that he could secure his election by the majority of his friends on the Council. He disputed the element of cost altogether. The cost of a Municipal election was not much; and all that would fall on the rates was simply the cost of the returning officer and other small expenses which would not be large. It would be the fault of the new County Councils themselves if they

  1893
  did not reduce the costs to a very small sum indeed. He said that the principle of co-optation should find no place in the Bill at all.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he was most anxious that there should not be too many elections, and he thought that the danger which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board foresaw would not in practice be as great as he anticipated. He wanted to provide against the possibility of two elections taking place. Suppose a vacancy occurred six months before an election in the ordinary course of things; the right hon. Gentleman feared that there would be an election followed by another at the ordinary period. But as a matter of fact he (Mr. Hanbury) did not think that would occur. He thought they would see that, if a casual vacancy occurred near the time of a General Election, the member returned would be likely to be returned again at the General Election without opposition.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was quite sure the Committee would not think that he was at all departing from the undertaking given last night. They were then discussing how a vacancy would be filled up in the case of Aldermen, and he had pointed out that such a vacancy would be filled up by the remaining members of the Council, and he had undertaken that the Government would accept an Amendment which would prevent co-optation. That was the concession of last night, and he thought after that explanation his hon. Friend would not think that, by proposing that this modification for dealing with vacancies shortly before a general election, he was departing from the undertaking which he had given. He certainly thought that it would be very hard, if, within three or four months from the time when the elections must necessarily take place, another election should be rendered necessary by a vacancy occurring; and that it would be wise to adopt some such suggestion as he had made, which he hoped the hon. Member opposite would accept.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he was quite sure that no one would bring any charge against the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board of having departed from his undertaking or of showing anything but
  1894
  respect and consideration to the Committee. But with regard to the present proposal, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had failed to show the object aimed at. For what purpose was this proposal made; and for whose benefit? It was not for the benefit of the county at large, because it was not the least object to the county at large to have 100 men doing its business instead of 98 or 99 as the case might be. There would be plenty of people to do the business even if these vacancies were not filled up. And still less was it to the advantage of the constituencies, for the interest of the constituency would be to have a representative, but the co-opted member would be no representative of the constituency at all. Therefore, if it were considered so great an object to have the election before what he might call the general election, he thought it would be better to leave the vacancy a vacancy still. That he must own would, in his opinion, be better than the importation of an exceedingly faulty principle into a Bill the machinery of which was in many respects so much liked.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he understood the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet to be, that if no vacancy occurred within six months of the general election, it should not be filled up at all. If that was the proposal the Government were ready to accept it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to insert after paragraph (c)—
  "Every Councillor shall be entitled to claim a sum in payment of the expenses, if any, actually and reasonably incurred by him in travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Council,"
  said, they had been told that the object of the Bill was to place County Councils in exactly the same position with regard to members as Town Councils. He did not know how they could be placed in the same position, unless some means were provided by which those persons whose means were narrow, such as working men and small tradesmen and others, were enabled to become members of the Councils. They must bear in mind that if they offered this supposed great advantage of municipal government, they must make the con-

  1895
  ditions equal. The question he had to ask was, were the working men to be placed in a position to become members of the Council? Many men of small means were members of Local Boards and school boards, and he pointed out that in the North of England there was a considerable number of working men who, by this means, were enabled to obtain very valuable lessons in Local Government. He did not think that any Member of the House would wish to lessen the numbers of the members of the working classes who commanded the confidence of their fellows, and who were sent free of travelling expenses to learn these valuable lessons in Local Government.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he rose to Order. There was a little misconception in the House as to where they were. Was the hon. Member moving an Amendment to Sub-section (d), or had it been struck out?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The sub-section has been struck out altogether.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he believed that one of the most important arguments that would be used against his proposal would be, that no small men would be able to go to the County Councils. Now, he ventured to deny the correctness of that statement. There were many members of working class organizations, and many small tradesmen who would be able to attend the Councils for a day or two, provided that some way were devised of paying their travelling expenses. He simply asked that in order to enable the County Councils to have upon them members whose means were small, and who, in some eases, might represent special working men's districts, that some provision of the kind should be made in this Bill. He admitted the difficulty of the question, and he did not assume that the wording he had suggested was the best possible to carry out the object in view; but he might point out that he had carefully guarded his proposal. In the first place, he said that members should be "entitled to claim," and, again, he had confined the payment to "actual and reasonable expenses," meaning by that, to leave no door open for payment at a higher rate than was absolutely necessary, or for the money not to be spent for the purpose for which it was intended. If, however,
  1896
  the Government could suggest better words, for securing the object in view than had occurred to his mind, he should be only too glad to accept them. But he felt sure that as Local Government became more and more developed in this country, so it became more and more desirable that they should bring in members of the working classes or lower middle class who were specially entrusted with responsibility of this kind by their fellow-men, and if the Government could see their way to devise any means of meeting the difficulty and putting the County Councillors on an equality in respect of expenses with the members of Town Councils and school boards, he sincerely hoped they would do so. They had gained enormously by the admission to that House of working men to assist in their deliberations in matters concerning the working classes, but it was only owing to the special circumstances connected with unions extending over large tracts of country that they had been able to obtain the assistance of such representatives. The presence of representatives of the working classes was most desirable, then, upon the Councils about to be created by this Bill. Let the Committee for a moment consider the question with reference to emigration. Emigration was an alternative very unpopular amongst the working classes, yet he ventured to say that if any industry in a particular part of the country were suffering, the question of emigration would become one of very great importance. Now, emigration would be regarded in a very different light than was generally the case if it were recommended by working men on the County Councils who were acquainted with the needs of the working classes, and if any means could be devised of having even a small porportion of men of this class on the County Council, he was certain it would command more confidence from the masses of the working classes, who they hoped would be benefited by this large and new measure of reform. The classes in this country were too much divided, and their desire was to train the representatives of working men to understand problems of Government. The working classes had many ideas which were utterly unreliable in matters of Government, they talked for instance a good deal of nonsense about land; but the

  1897
  desire of hon. Gentlemen ought to be to teach them to send some working men to the Councils to thresh out all these questions, who might return from the Councils and tell the men who had trusted them that some of their ideas on such matters were impossible of fulfilment. The Government had refused to set up the parish assembly for the discussion of these matters; they said there was this admirable municipal administration, and that anybody who was chosen could be sent to the County Council; but the working men would reply—"How can we send our men to the County Council unless provision is made for the expenses which they cannot afford to pay?" As he had said, the only way to give equality of representation was to give equality of conditions, and he pressed his proposal with no other object than to make real equality as between the County Councils and those bodies which now existed, to which men of small means had been already sent.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 2, after paragraph (c), insert—"Every councillor shall be entitled to claim a sum in payment of the expenses, if any, actually and reasonably incurred by him in travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Council.—(Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham. If this reform was to be valuable to the working men, he considered it absolutely necessary that some such provision as the hon. Member proposed should be inserted in the Bill. He could point to several institutions in the North of England, where already a number of the Councillors were working men, including the school boards. He understood that the Government were favourable to the principle that the County Councils should, at no distant date, have the management and control of education, and he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that unless some such provision was inserted in the Bill as was proposed by the hon. Member it would, so far as the working classes were concerned, prove a retrograde measure, because their representatives would be deterred by the expense of
  1898
  travelling and other matters from attending the Councils. He suggested that his hon. Friend should make it imperative that the County Councillor should receive his expenses, because he did not like it to be thought that some were willing to bear the expenses and others were not; and unless a man were obliged to claim them, the poverty of those who did would be accentuated, and that, in his opinion, was most undesirable.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Committee would consent to report Progress on that point. The Government had the fullest sense of the importance of the question before the Committee; but they thought it would be more convenient considering the hour (6.40) that they should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  CUSTOMS (WINE DUTY) BILL.
  Resolutions [June 11] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. Bill [293.]
  It being a quarter of an hour before Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  RE-ORGANIZATIONS IN PUBLIC OFFICES.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. JENNINGSsaid, the rose to call attention to the abuses connected with frequent and costly re-organizations in various Public Offices; and to move—
  "That the re-organizations in the Accountant General's and Secretary's Departments of the Admiralty have been injurious to the public interests by resulting in increased charges for those Departments, and by needlessly adding to extravagant pensions and bonuses; and that in any future re-organizations, officials who are still able and willing to render service for the public money should be

  1899
  provided with employment in other Departments, instead of being forced to become useless burdens upon the country."
  The question raised in the Resolution that he submitted was one of great importance to the public, because it involved the expenditure of large sums of money and the abolition of a system which was fraught with great evils to the country. He hoped the House would not be deterred from expressing an opinion upon the matter by the argument that his Resolution related to what had happened in the past. New schemes of this kind were being continually projected, and nothing would put an end to them but the condemnation of that House and the country. He did not suppose there would be any dispute as to the facts upon which his statements were based, as he bad drawn them all from official sources. In the Estimates for the last 20 years, which he had carefully compared and examined; in the Parliamentary Paper which was known as the "Appendix to Class VI.;" in the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt); and in the Return produced on his (Mr. Jennings') own Motion in February last, were to be found the materials he proposed to lay before the House. Nor did he propose to seek to attach any special blame to any Ministry or any Party. If the Party opposite had been concerned in more re-organizations than the Tory Party, there was good reason to believe that it was because they had been longer in power than had the Tory Party. Now, the game of re-organization was so planned that everybody who took part in it was sure to win, except the British taxpayer. The Head of a Department came into Office, and for one reason or another he thought it desirable to change many of the officials under him. When these officials retired they were all entitled to large bonuses, and to still larger pensions. As they were, as a rule, removed expressly on the ground that their room was worth more than their company, it seemed to follow that they must have been bad bargains for the nation from the first. Well, these officials went out with their pensions, and, after an interval, a new set of officials made their appearance, generally at somewhat lower salaries than
  1900
  their predecessors had received. The Minister who accomplished this operation came down to the House, he was able to show a small saving, he talked very loudly about economy, and the country, ever credulous, congratulated itself upon at last having put the right man in the right place. A few years elapsed and another Head of the Department came in. He, too, saw strong reasons for changing some of the officials under him, and repeated the operation of reorganization. The officials themselves, as a rule, were quite willing to disappear upon abolition terms, which were equivalent to a man coming into a very handsome legacy. Out they went; in come another set; the process was repeated, and after an interval of a few years each Department was found to cost about as much as it did in the first instance, while a very large addition was made to the Pension List. That was the general plan of re-organization, and he would, with the permission of the House, proceed to show in what way it worked. It would be seen that his Resolution laid down the principle that an effort should be made to provide employment for persons who were re-organized, rather than saddle the country with heavy pensions payable to them for the rest of their lives. As this principle was likely to meet with some opposition, he would endeavour as briefly as he could to prove the absolute necessity for adopting it. In 1870, there was a reconstruction of the Court of Bankruptcy, and enormous sums were paid to persons who did not appear to have been in office for more than a few months, or a few years, and who were not entitled upon public grounds to any special recognition by the State. He found that Mr. Holroyd, a Commissioner, received £2,000 a-year for life, and six other Commissioners received £1,800 a-year each, although no entry was made in the column which recorded the length of the service. It must be concluded that these persons had not been long in the service, otherwise the period they had been employed would be given, as there was a special column set aside for that purpose. Whenever a man had been in office for a few years, the period was entered against his name, and where there was a blank it must be assumed and taken for granted that there

  1901
  was no length of service to record. In one case, that of a Registrar, the period of service was mentioned. It was five years, during which the holder of the office had received £1,000 a-year. He was accorded a pension of £666 a-year for the remainder of his life. Another Registrar of two and a-half years' service received the same favourite sum—for everyone who looked over the Returns would be surprised to find how often this sum of £666, with the addition of 13 s. 4d. only, appeared against the names of various individuals. One of the persons who received a pension of £1,800 in 1870 was Mr. M. D. Hill. Two years afterwards there was another reconstruction of the Court, and Mr. A. Hill appeared for a pension of £666. This was only one of the numerous cases which might be cited to show the curious tendency of pensions to run in families. It would be frequently observed by anyone who looked over these pensions, that when once a family got hold of a pension it spread out its arms like an octopus. Well, there was another Commissioner who received a pension—and no doubt these officials were deserving officials; he imagined, in fact, that they deserved better treatment than to be placed on the Pension List, and that they ought to have been kept on the active list. Mr. Commissioner Winslow, in 1872, at the age of 49, received £2,000 a-year for life, and there was absolutely no evidence in the Returns to show that he had been even six months in Public Service. If anyone could explain how long Mr. Commissioner Winslow was in the Service in order to qualify him to receive this £2,000 a-year for life, he would make a very valuable addition to the "Appendix to Class VI." and the Estimates bearing upon these subjects. Then, in 1884–85, the Bankruptcy Department was again re-organized, and the British taxpayer was made to smart for it in the usual way. One gentleman received £1,200 a-year, new officials were called in at high salaries, and large pensions accrued—for it must be understood that the cost of a civil servant was not to be measured by the amount of his salary alone, the amount of deferred pay must also be taken into account. What he asked was, why should not all these persons, who retired under this re-orga-
  1902
  nization scheme, have been engaged in the administration of the new Bankruptcy Act? It must not be assumed that they were incompetent to discharge duties which must have been of a very similar character to those they had formerly been in the habit of discharging. These highly paid gentlemen must have been fully competent to administer the new Bankruptcy Act—just as competent as they were to administer the Act in operation up to that period. Most of them retired in the prime of life, and there was no object whatever in getting rid of them, except to comply with that powerful force in public life in England, family and official influence. But even allowing that the Commissioners—these highly paid officials—were incompetent to administer the new Bankruptcy Act, surely the same could not be said of the messengers. Some use might have been made of them under the new arrangement. A man who was capable of delivering a letter or carrying a message under one Bankruptcy Act was surely competent to deliver a message or carry a letter under another Act. But that did not seem to be the official view of the matter. All the messengers had to go, together with the higher officials. He found that in 1870 a man got a pension of over 1200 a-year for life, though he did not appear to have been long in office. A Lord Chancellor's messenger, who was, of course, a very superior kind of messenger, received a pension of £200 a-year for life at the age of 27, and he appeared to still enjoy that pension; for an annuity from the British Government will keep a man alive any length of time. The Board of Trade had undergone several re-organizations. Between 1863 and 1868 a large number of clerks were abolished, some of them not older than 38 or 44. They received pensions of from £291 to £1,200 a-year. He saw that a joint secretary appeared to have had £1,200 a-year, and then in 1869–70 a relation of his received £146 a-year at the age of 34. Nothing would be more touching to the diligent student of these Papers than the numerous instances they afforded of family affection when it could be indulged in at the expense of the British taxpayer. So far as he (Mr. Jennings) could judge, the people who got these pensions, and who got abolished and re-organized, married and

  1903
  intermarried, and formed quite an independent clan by themselves. They were only to be tracked by one who took the Estimates and concurrently studied the history of what were called the "upper classes." It seemed to him that after a time these people set up a sort of claim to a vested interest in the Public Service. They seemed to think they had a kind of title to receive all the good things, because they or their friends had always been taken care of. That principle alone could account for the fact that the country had so many incompetent persons in the Public Offices at the present moment. It was only fair, however, to say that the privileged classes did not always get everything, for under the Board of Trade re-organization, in 1869–70, even a dustman came in for a pension of £7 16 s. a-year for life, being thus put on a level with those families who could boast that they had scarcely ever been without a pension or a sinecure. Let him quote one other instance of what he might call the curiosities of re-organization. He found that in 1851 a senior clerk in the Mint received £150 a-year, as a note in the Estimates said, "as compensation for loss of prospect to succeed Mr. Matheson as melter." So that under this beautiful system a man might not only be compensated for the loss of his own office, but also for losing the prospect of getting somebody else's. The Foreign Office had been a mine of gold to the reconstructor and the reconstructed, but he would only give ore or two instances from these Papers with regard to that Department. In 1881–2 a clerk was re-organized to the tune of £601 5s. per annum at the age of 47, an assistant clerk received £390, and another got £400 a-year at the age of 45, and a translator at the age of 38 got £108 a-year. In a reconstruction in 1878 at the War Office 70 clerks, whose average age was 40, got an average pension of £235. In this reconstruction £40,546 a-year was added to the Pension List and £109,980 was paid in bonuses, and since then 20 new clerks had been added to the office, although it was then, as now, disgracefully overmanned. An immense number of persons were at this moment paid liberally for doing nothing, because at some time or other they had held office in Ireland. Opinions differed widely as
  1904
  to whether the British connection was profitable or not to Ireland itself, but there could be no question that it was a mighty good thing for those who got office under it. They had all seen how rapidly Irish officials had passed from obscurity into the peerage, or on to the Judicial Bench, or had received handsome pensions, but anyone who examined the last 11 pages of the "Appendix to Class VI." would find numerous instances of a minor kind of the same description of good luck. There were persons connected with institutions of which many people in England had never even heard receiving handsome pensions—persons, for instance, connected with model farms and so on. Numbers of prison officials were re-organized for what reason no one was able to discover, unless it was that the administration of successive Crimes Acts had imposed too great a strain upon their energies. In the pages of these Papers, from which he was quoting, would be found a nice little assortment of Resident Magistrates who received handsome compensation allowances, amounting in some cases to £675, and in one case a large compensation allowance was received for only two years' service. Altogether, under this heading, £5,165 a-year was paid, and, he must say, whatever might be his opinion of the political aspect of the question, that on the whole the British connection paid some people remarkably well. But if they wanted to see re-organization in all its glory they must look to the Admiralty. Elsewhere it might be an exotic, but at the Admiralty it was a hardy annual, and consequently they were able to study it in all its perfection. The story was somewhat intricate, and it involved the quotation of a few figures. He would make every effort to compress those figures into the shortest space that he could. To deal first with the Accountant General's office. Department of the Accountant General was the happy hunting ground of the reconstructor. It had been reduced and reconstructed and re-organized over and over and over again, and yet at this moment it was more expensive than ever it was. There were more persons employed there in the work of superintendence, and the pension list was larger.[Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: No, no!] if the noble Lord would allow him to make

  1905
  his own statement he (Lord George Hamilton) would have an opportunity—as he was sure he possessed the ability—to give that statement an answer. He would ask to be allowed to give the facts which were to be found in these official documents. The sort of manipulation that went on in this office was illustrated by the post of Deputy Accountant General. In 1854 that office was abolished, and innocent persons thought that there was an end of it, and that they would hear nothing more about it; but in 1861 it was revived with the addition of another official—an Inspector of Yard Accounts—at a salary of £850 a-year; and then in 1868 there was an Assistant Accountant General sent to help those gentlemen at a salary of £1,000, and even that was nothing to what was to follow. The success of those operations soon brought together a hungry crowd of persons who expected offices, and another hungry crowd who expected pensions, and, on the whole, looking at these crowds, it was deemed a most desirable thing to have a new deal all round. The particular class, for there was such a class, which regarded the Admiralty as an institution which was mainly kept up for their benefit and the benefit of their families, and only in a minor degree for looking after the naval defences of this country, found that everything was arranged according to their desire. Twenty-five clerks were sent into retirement, some of them at the ages of 25, 28, 32, 34, and so on. Nearly half of the whole number were under the age of 50. The Department was able to boast that it had saved £14,590 in salaries; but it took care not to say a word about the fact that it had added £8,406 to the Pension List, nor was there any public mention made of the circumstance that three new offices were created, a Deputy Controller of Navy Pay at £1,000 a-year, a Chief Clerk at £850, and an Assistant Inspector of Accounts at £500 a-year. From this point the story rolls on like the tale of the house that Jack built. Some touches of re-organization were tried year after year, but the grand coup was played in 1878–9. Those years will ever be among the most precious recollections of the Admiralty. Pensions and bonuses were distributed as a fairy sister's gifts in a pantomime. The Deputy Accountant General, aged 52, went away
  1906
  smiling with. £489 in his pocket by way of bonus, and a pension of £666 a-year. A Chief Clerk of 49 got £566 a-year, and £495 bonus. A book-keeper, whose salary had been £800 a-year, received a pension of £480 a-year and a bonus of £475 6s. 10 d. Senior clerks who were only 42 or 43 years of ago received pensions of £328 a-year each and bonuses of £600 or £700. Some of the clerks thus quartered on the country were only 31 or 32; 46 out of 65 persons on the list were under the age of 50; 15 were under 40. Three only were above the ago of 60. Altogether, this stroke of business cost the country over £20,000 a-year in pensions, and £52,199 in bonuses. Nor was this all. A new set of officials was created at higher salaries—the Accountant General received £1,500 a-year, a Deputy Accountant General £1,200, six Chief Clerks from £700 to £900, and so on. The Deputy Controller of Navy Pay, receiving £1,000 a-year, had his office abolished; but this same gentleman re-appeared under this sweeping re-organization scheme as Deputy Accountant General, only that, instead of getting £1,000 a-year, he got a salary of £1,200 a-year, so that he gained £200 per annum by abolition. He (Mr. Jennings) remembered hearing it said in America that a certain man must be doing pretty well because he had been bankrupt four or five times in as many years, and the test to apply to a Government clerk to find out whether he was prosperous or not was to ask "how many times has he been abolished?" He had traced various individuals who had been abolished and who re-appeared in a marvellous manner, having been benefited by the change and having had their salaries largely increased. Individuals throve under this system, but the nation suffered. It was alleged that the saving in salaries by this re-organization of 1878–80 amounted to £15,500; but not a word was over said, nor would it be said that night, about the addition to the Pension List of over £20,000 a-year or of the £52,000 paid for bonuses. And how long did even this pretended saving last? It lasted for about four or five years, and then, in 1885–6, there was another re-organization, with the result, the truly brilliant result, that two Assistant Accountants General made their appearance on the scene at a salary of

  1907
  £1,000 a-year each, and an Acting Assistant Accountant General at £1,000, and nine Superintending Clerks at salaries from £700 to £800 a-year, the increase being, as usual, most marked in the higher paid offices. Sometimes a poor devil of a copyist was swept away; but he was always replaced by a Superintendent Clerk—say, at £800 a-year, or by an Acting Assistant Deputy Accountant General at £1,000 a-year. The final result of re-organization in the Accountant General's Department was sufficient in itself to prove his case. For many years, and down to 1861, there was only one Accountant General of the Navy at the head of this Office with a salary of £1,300 a-year, who was able to perform all the work of superintendence. This work was now done by the following persons, a list of whom he had copied from the present year's Estimates. There was one Accountant General at £1,500 a-year; there was a Deputy Accountant General at £1,200 a-year; there were two Assistant Accountants General, each at £1,000 a-year; there was one Assistant Accountant General, acting, at £1,000 a-year; there were nine Superintending Clerks, costing £7,019; and there were 16 Assistant Superintending Clerks, costing £9,679, together with one Inspector of Yard Accounts at £700 a-year, and one Assistant Inspector of Yard Accounts at £450, making a total of £22,548 a-year, now being paid by the nation chiefly for the work of superintendence which used to be performed for under £2,000. [cries of "No!"] Well, that was his statement, gathered from the official documents which he had been able to obtain. If there were any other official documents in existence which disproved these facts, he should be glad to hear of them. He repeated that all these persons had been added to the Service since the year when the Accountant General of the Navy was the only person who did the real work of superintendence—that was to say, the year 1861. There was then no Deputy Accountant General; no Acting Assistant Accountant General; no superintendent clerks at these high salaries; no Inspector of Yard Accounts; and no Assistant Inspector of Yard Accounts. He did not see what use it was for any one to dispute these facts, because anyone who would look at the Return produced, on the Motion of the hon. Mem-
  1908
  ber for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), would find all of them set out there beyond the possibility of contradiction. That £22,000 should be spent in the Accountants General's Office at the Admiralty for the mere work of superintendence was, of course, a great abuse. That was the way the money went; and it helped to explain how it was that we were said to have no Navy adequate to our needs, and why we had no guns. The reason was that the money was muddled and jobbed away in this extraordinary and reckless fashion, so that even the offices in which it was spent were really ignored. Here they had Accountants General, and Deputy Accountants General, and Assistant Accountants General, all tumbling over each other, doing no real work, drawing enormous salaries, running up very high pensions, and generally demoralising the Public Service. That was the only result which was produced by their existence. To-night he had not heard from the Admiralty Officials anything but a few exclamations of astonishment. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had testified before the Royal Commismission now sitting that the money spent upon these persons was an "altogether unnecessary expenditure." Those were his words—and no wonder the hon. Gentleman sat in silence and allowed the First Lord to do all the contradicting. The hon. Gentleman had said more than that even. He had said many things which would appear in the evidence which were quite as strong or stronger than that, and the Assistant Secretary (Mr. Awdry)—and no doubt he was a very competent person—had testified before the Commission that the Staff was out of all proportion to the character of the work they were called upon to do. Could anyone need more conclusive evidence in proof of the statement he (Mr. Jennings) had made than this. The Assistant Secretary, Mr. Awdry, was not there to say "No, no," like the noble Lord; but his words were in print and they could be consulted by Members of the House and the public. The truth was the very officials themselves began to cry out against this shameful extravagance and jobbery. They were like the Roman augurs, they could not meet each other without laughing. That the public had stood it quietly so long was simply owing to

  1909
  the fact that they had known nothing about what was going on. They had been told that the large sums of money voted for the Admiralty all went for ships and machinery and sailors, but the fact was that it did nothing of the kind. He had always maintained, and he maintained now, that if the money voted by this country were spent honestly on the Navy, and not muddled away upon unnecessary officials and jobbed away by useless changes and worse than useless changes, they would have a good Navy that day, and not be subjected to recurrent panics and sudden demands for additional sums of money to place us in a state of defence. To open their eyes to the truth was the first step towards reform. He ventured to hope that something would be accomplished in that direction that night. Now, let them for a moment turn to the Secretary's Department. The facts concerning the Secretary's Department of the Admiralty were shown in the Return produced on his (Mr. Jennings) Motion in February last. He found that the great re-organizations there took place in 1869–70 and in 1879–80. The avowed object he need not say was as usual to promote the great and sacred cause of economy. The result was to produce a temporary diminution in the working expenses of the Office and a very real addition to the pension list. He would cite only a few illustrations. A clerk, aged 50, received a pension of £702 a-year; another of 55 got £833 a-year, which was within £167 of his full salary, for life; another clerk of 35 got £129 16 s. 8d. a-year. In 1872, another clerk was "re-organized" successfully for himself; but he (Mr. Jennings) was was not quite sure whether so successfully for the country. He was then turned 50 years of age and had a salary of £750 a-year. He retired with £500 a-year for life, and he (Mr. Jennings) never heard that he made any complaint about it. In 1876, a clerk of 37 retired with a pension of £289 6s. 8d. In 1877, the Office of Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty was abolished, the holder, aged 45, receiving £678 2s. 6d. a-year, until another good berth was provided for him as County Court Judge, when his annuity was reduced to £250 a-year.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman mention the name?
  MR. JENNINGSreferred the First Lord to his own Return—he had merely copied all the facts out of that Return.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Member says the Permanent Secretary retired with a pension, and was made a County Court Judge,—and I want to know his name.
  MR. JENNINGSsaid, he had not stated that that had happened recently—everything he said seemed to be misunderstood by the noble Lord—he was referring to what had happened in 1876–7. After this little interlude he might perhaps now be allowed to go on with his statement. In 1877, the Office of Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty was abolished; that holder of it, aged 45, received as he had said, £678 2s. 6d., and another good berth was provided for him as County Court Judge, when his annuity was reduced to £250 a-year. Was that a fact? ["Yes."] Well, if the noble Lord had allowed him to finish his statement he would have found nothing to contradict. These were the facts, the scandalous facts, of the case, and if half the eagerness displayed in trying to throw doubt upon their accuracy were exhibited in the attempt to avoid such scandals in future, there would be no necessity for anyone to get up and make statements similar to those he (Mr. Jennings) was obliged to make that night. The salary of the Permanent Secretary had been £1,500 a-year, so that with the full pension there was a saving of £822 a-year. But in 1882 another Permanent Secretary was born into the world with a salary of £2,000, instead of :1,500. ["No!"] Well, he said it was so, and he hoped the Return was in the hands of hon. Members, in order that they might refer to it, and see that the statement he made was perfectly correct. The office of Naval Secretary was abolished, but the total expenses of the office—chiefly for superintendence—had steadily and heavily increased. In 1869, before the re-organization, these expenses were £26,019. By 1877 they had gone up to £28,406, without reckoning the large increase in the Pension List, and he believed that the amount was now increasing as it had increased steadily during the last few years. In 1878–80 it was deemed high time to make another large number of persons easy in their circumstances by abolishing their offices.

  1911
  Six clerks under 40 years of age received pensions of from £325 to £615 a-year, and bonuses in addition amounting to £4,206. One clerk of 36 received a pension of £210 a-year and a bonus of £871. The total sum paid for pensions was £7,378 a-year and for bonuses £10,897. In 1881, after this re-organization, the total cost of the office was £23,888. The operation had effected a saving in salaries of about £4,300, which was counterbalanced by an increase in the Pension List of £7,378 a-year. But even this entirely delusive saving soon began to disappear. In 1882 the expenses increased over £1,180, and gradually they went on growing until, in the Estimates of the present year, they reached the sum of about £26,000. If they took into consideration the increase in salaries, pensions, and bonuses which had to be recorded since 1871, when the Secretary's office cost £22,678 all told, they could not reckon that the re-organizations in the Department had cost the country less than £269,000—money he contended utterly thrown away. Upon the most moderate estimate over £500,000 had been recklessly squandered during the last few years in Departmental changes in the Admiralty which ought never to have been made, or ought never to have been made in that particular way. The Pension List connected with the Accountants General's Office now amounted to £32,324 a-year, and of the Secretary's Office to £16,908 a-year; and of course he need not explain to anyone who understood the system of the Office that these amounts must go on increasing. Of course, other re-organizations were being projected, and successive relays of pensioners would be foisted upon the country unless Parliament interfered. Many more facts might be quoted to show the necessity for the interference of Parliament, but he thought probably he had troubled the House with enough of them. What he wanted to show was that the whole system was wrong, and he must my that he came down to the House prepared to find that the Government would admit that it was wrong, and he did not now imagine that the Government would seriously undertake to defend all that had been done under this system in the past, or even seriously to justify the system itself. There could be no question that officers, clerks, and other
  1912
  persons, quite equal in capacity to the present holders of such offices as those to which he had referred, could be obtained for much smaller salaries than those now paid. The holders of such offices ought to be content with their salaries, and should not look for high pensions for a few years' service. They should be considered abundantly recompensed by having salaries 50 per cent. or so higher than those paid for corresponding work in any mercantile office. He would respectfully suggest that it was very little use for any of his hon. Friends or anyone sitting in that House to go round the country at election time raising a great dust about economy, unless they made some effort to give their professions a practical turn in that House. It seemed to him that any Government or any Party which declined to acknowledge that there was great room for reform in this matter would assuredly place itself in a false position. Of course it was not a very pleasant duty to expose these abuses. In the House, Ministers and ex-Ministers met anyone with obstinate denials of the facts, even when, as in this case, they were taken entirely from official documents. Out of the House one was called a Radical, but that epithet would not frighten him. If an anxiety to reform abuses of that kind could stamp a man as a Radical, he was quite willing to receive that stamp, and to avow that he would rather vote for the abolition of these abuses as a Radical than vote for their defence as a Tory. He maintained that the country was sick and tired of this system of providing for what they called good families, and of having offices shuffled round amongst the people who had always been in the habit of receiving them. The public were weary of having costly and useless officials put into their positions because their fathers or mothers or uncles had influence with high officers of State. He thought the mind of the country was bent upon having searching reform in these matters. He ventured to suggest that an opportunity for proving that they on the Ministerial side of the House were in earnest in demanding such a reform was afforded by the Motion he respectfully submitted to the House, and which he now asked the House to adopt.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Stock-

  1913
  port (Mr. Jennings) had so completely and exhaustively dealt with this subject that he left him (Major Rasch) very little necessity for taking up the time of the House. Every hon. Member who had heard the speech of the Mover of the Motion must have had forced upon him this fact, that re-organization was an extremely pleasant amusement for the re-organized Department, but that it was an extremely expensive one for the taxpayer. He could not help thinking that the result of these re-organizations was by no means commensurate with the expense that it entailed, because, as a matter of fact, these re-organized Departments were the Departments which carried out that system which made this country practically the laughing stock of Europe during the last four years. It was owing to these re-organized Departments that we had guns sent out to the Red Sea, and that we had, as was shown in the Commission asked for by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), flour sent out which was more like plaster of Paris than anything else; that we had tin bayonets, pewter swords, armour clads with their armour belts below the water, and ships without guns. And worst of all, we found that these Departments occupied themselves in composing reports in duplicate, triplicate, and quadruplicate—reports which were an eyesore to our soldiers and civil servants at home and abroad, and which it took them all their time to understand. With regard to the system of re-organization he could only take one Department which his hon. Friend had alluded to, and that was the Secretarial Department of the Admiralty. He would touch upon one or two points which his hon. Friend had not dealt with. This fortunate Department from a re-organization point of view had been re-organized twice. The first time was in 1869, and it cost the country £26,000 a-year. The number of clerks was reduced by 11, and the result of the reduction was a saving of £3,300 in salaries, but the amount spent in pensions was £5,500 a-year. In 1871 the Department had again crept up to £28,000 a-year, and, besides that, the whole of the pensions had to be paid into the bargain. That, he ventured to think, with all respect to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, was rather an Irish way of re-organizing. ["Oh, oh!"] Again, in 1879, the cost
  1914
  was £28,000, and in 1881, in this extremely fortunate Department, 17 clerks were shelved, and the cost was reduced to £24,000 a-year, but plus £7,000 a-year pensions and £10,000 for bonuses. The net result of this re-organization in one Department was an extra expenditure of something like £125,000 between the years 1869 and 1886, which sum was entirely spent on pensions, bonuses, and salaries, which were absolutely unnecessary, and need never have been incurred. He found that there were two sets of officials who benefited by those schemes of re-organization, one set being composed of men who were old and perfectly incompetent, and the other being composed of young, smart officials, who were able to obtain work outside their Department. He would venture to suggest that no Government Department should be allowed to re-organize itself, aided by wire-pullers. Every re-organization should be carried out by an independent Commission, altogether disconnected with the Department and acting outside. He also thought that no reorganization should be carried out—as he believed there was a general tendency on the part of several Government Departments to make hay while the sun shone—until the Report of the Commission now sitting was produced. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench on that (the Ministerial) side of the House would pay attention to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), because he (Major Rasch) knew perfectly well, from his own experience in connection with the electors of his Division, that the electorate of the country were getting tired of seeing these re-organizations carried out, as they were really and truly the merest shuffling about of highly-paid officials from one position to another. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the re-organizations in the Accountant General's and Secretary's Departments of the Admiralty have been injurious to the public interests, by resulting in increased charges for those Departments, and by needlessly adding to extravagant pensions and bonuses; and that in any further re-organizations, officials who are still able and willing to render service for the public money shall be provided with employment in other Departments, instead of being forced to become useless burdens upon the country."—(Mr. Jennings.)
  MR CHILDERS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that I am not one of those who regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) has brought forward this Resolution, because I think that no one who has had the official experience that has fallen to my lot can do otherwise than rejoice that this most difficult matter of re-organization should be thoroughly well ventilated in the House of Commons. I may say more, that so far from re-organization being, as is supposed—and as I almost thought, from an expression which fell from him, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport himself believed—a pleasure and satisfaction to the Head of a Department who has to undertake it, I, who have had one very serious reorganization to undertake, declare most solemnly that there is no duty which can be more odious, more distasteful. If you are re-organizing a large Department—and I am going to give the House some facts about a re-organization which I personally undertook—you will have to meet more heart-burnings, more discontent, more personal feeling than any Minister or Head of a Department can meet with in any other official duty he may have to perform; and I will undertake to say on the part of all those whom I see opposite, and on the part of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who usually sit on this side of the House, that so far from their regarding re-organization as a source of satisfaction, the very opposite is the case, and though duty may require it to be undertaken, nothing is a greater source of dissatisfaction. I do not propose and it would be impossible for me to go through all the details offered to the House in the speech of the hon. Member. There were, however, some matters outside the particular Resolution he has moved, which, I think, I may refer to, and as to which those who have sat for some time in the House will agree with me in correcting the views of the hon. Gentleman. He not only went into the question of the re-organizations in the Department to which the Resolution referred, but he also spoke of the re-organization of certain Judicial Departments—for instance, the Court of Bankruptcy. Now, it will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the House when the
  1916
  former Bills were brought in re-organizing the bankruptcy and other legal departments of the country, that there was nothing on which there was greater controversy at that time than in the demands of those who were interested as members of the Legal Profession in some of the arrangements of the Court of Bankruptcy, to obtain for the officials by Statute, not by voluntary or Departmental arrangements, the largest amount of compensation or superannuation possible; and I, myself, in this House, had more than once to take part in the endeavour to keep down those charges, and I think I speak with the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) when I say that, as far as some of these compensations in legal Departments are concerned, they were Acts of this House, carried, very often, despite the strenuous opposition of those who wished to see more economical arrangements. That is certainly the case as to the former Bankruptcy Act; and possibly the hon. Member for Stockport, who was not in Parliament when that Act was passed, is not aware that for the organization referred to, those who were responsible were not the officials of the Treasury, but Members of Parliament themselves, who stereotyped the old provisions as to compensation to legal officers, and left the Government no alternative whatever. I say that parenthetically, because I am glad the hon. Gentleman should have brought this subject before Parliament, though, I think, it is desirable some of his facts should be corrected. I said before that I have had some experience in this matter. I am responsible for one great scheme of re-organization to which the hon. Member has referred, and, with the leave of the House, I will now state what that re-organization was, and upon what principles we acted. I refer to the re-organization in 1869 of some departments of the Admiralty, for which I had the good—or bad—fortune to be responsible. When I took office as First Lord of the Admiralty, at the end of the year 1868 it was found that the old Naval Departments, Civil and Naval, were enormously in excess of the public requirements. I will give the House some figures showing how that was. Whether it was in respect of officers on the active list or officers on half-pay

  1917
  or in respect of the Civil Departments of the Admiralty itself, or Civil Departments in other branches of the Service subordinate to the Admiralty, we found, as was well known in Parliament after inquiries by Committees and Commissions during the preceding 10 years, that there was an enormous excess in the number of persons connected with the Admiralty, and we undertook—and communicated our decision at once to Parliament—the revision of those matters. I will now give the House, correctly, the facts, not from conjecture, not from information picked out here and there, but from a complete Return laid before Parliament in the years 1872 and 1874, and I will quote in each case what it was we had to do and how we did it. The House will then see whether, in respect of that reorganization, the description the hon. Gentleman gives of it is deserved. When we took Office at the Admiralty, we found that the total number of naval officers of all ranks on pay, or half-pay, was 5,143. We were of opinion that there were at least 1,500 too many. It was necessary to re-organize with a view to the necessary reduction, and in four years from that time the number had been reduced by 1,200 officers on full pay, and 336 on half-pay, or a total of 1,536 officers. It will be said that that does not include the retired list, and that we put a large number of officers on the retired list, and in that way made up for the economy in the active Service. I find that the total number of officers, including Warrant Officers on pay, half-pay, retired pay, and reserved pay, in 1868 was 10,607, and that step by step they were reduced, including those on the retired and reserve lists, to 9,514, or,in all, a reduction of 1,093 officers. I take these figures from Paper No. 256, of 1872. It may, however, be asked—But did you economize expenditure? It will be said—"When you made this reduction, you probably so increased the non-effective expenditure as to raise the total charge." I refer hon. Members to Paper 321, of 1872, and they will see that in the short space of four years the total number of officers on the ordinary fighting active list was reduced in such a manner as to produce, including retired and reserve pay, an economy of £29,000 a-year, and of all ranks above Warrant Officers an economy of £13,000 a-year.
  MR. LALOR:I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Question before the House?
  MR. CHILDERS: Well, I think it is very hard—
  MR. GENT-DAVIS: The Question submitted to you, Sir, has not been decided.
  MR. SPEAKER: I decided it by silence.
  MR. CHILDERS: I think it is rather hard, seeing that we were in Office during the period which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jennings) that I should not be allowed to tell the whole story. As a matter of fact, then, I have shown that the charge for pay and retired pay was greatly reduced in respect of what are called naval officers by the amount of no less than £29,000 a-year. But now let me go to the particular Departments to which the hon. Member specially alluded. Let me remind him that those are only two out of a considerable number of Civil Departments of the Admiralty. In the Returns to which he has referred, he has very naturally fallen into an error—not a grievous one in itself, but one which a little more knowledge of the Departments of the Admiralty at that time would have saved him from. I mean he has not taken into account, in bringing before the House the circumstances of the Accountant General's Department, that when the reduction took place, and as an important set-off in his calculations of the small amount of this reduction, a large number of clerks were transferred from other Departments when their business was transferred to the Accountant General's Department. In 1868–9 we found there was an enormous excess in the aggregate number of persons employed in the Civil Departments of the Admiralty. We found that the town departments of the Admiralty—that is to say, the Secretary's Department, the Departments of the Accountant General, the Storekeeper General, the Controller of Victualling, and the other departments in London had 473 salaried officers. These figures are taken from Return 256, of 1872. I do not think the hon. Member for Stockport, in his inquiry, has gone back to these Returns, although he has gone back to the period they represent. They were Returns called for by Parliament

  1919
  at the time when this very subject was discussed—because this question of the re-organization of the Admiralty Departments is not a new one. It was fully discussed in 1870–1–2, and more particularly in 1874, and though the discussions in Committee do not appear very fully in Hansard, the hon. Gentleman will find a good deal on the subject in those debates. If he looks through the Parliamentary Papers he will find the precise information in which his speech was wanting, and which I now take the liberty of bringing before him. In 1868–69, as I have said, we found an enormous excess in the number of persons employed in the Civil Departments of the Admiralty—I am not now speaking of the Naval officers. We found an enormous surplusage in the number of civil officers employed under the Admiralty, and I will give the House these facts—what number we found, what reduction we made, what economy there was in salaries, and what economy there was in pensions; and then I think the hon. Member—who, I am sure, is anxious to know the facts of the case—will admit that I have put before him a statement not entirely in accordance with all the conclusions he has drawn from the Papers to which he referred, and in fact on many points in diametrical opposition to them. We found, I say, that the town Departments of the Admiralty had 473 salaried officers. These were strenuously reduced, and there were a good many transfers made from one Department to another, and the result was that in 1872 the 473 had been reduced to 390—that is to say, 83 Civil servants at work in the Admiralty were employed less than were employed in 1868. At the same time, the number of writers was increased by one-third, and in the result the whole number of official persons, of whatever rank, employed in the Civil Departments of the Admiralty in London, were reduced by 47, producing an economy of £18,000 a-year. But, it will be asked, what was the effect on the Pension List, and what was the net result to the country? I have taken some pains to obtain information from the Returns I have quoted as to the total number of persons employed in the Civil Department of the Admiralty, whether clerks or writers, comparing 1868 and 1872, and also to the total
  1920
  charge for salaries and pensions paid to those clerks. Here, again, I must include the effect of large transfers from one Department to another. In 1868 there were 1,344 civilians, including writers, employed in the Civil Department of the Admiralty in London and elsewhere. In 1872 there were 1,047—that is to say, we reduced the number of civil servants employed under the Admiralty by 297. The salaries were reduced by £74,000 a-year. The pensions, which, of course, diminish year after year, were, at first in the maximum, increased by £26,000 a-year; but in respect of the Civil Department of the Admiralty, as between 1868, when the re-organization began, and 1872, when it was over, there was already a net economy, in salaries and pensions together, to the extent of £48,000 a-year. That, however, would not be a perfectly fair statement, and I wish to correct it in this respect—that a certain number of those servants had commuted their pensions. That commutation was equivalent to £5,000 a-year, so that the net economy in respect of civilians in the Admiralty, as between 1868 and 1872, was 297 persons, costing in salaries and pensions less by £43,000 a-year. I think those facts, which are taken from the Return No. 256 of 1872, ought to be carefully weighed by the House in considering the merit or demerit of the re-organization undertaken in 1869. The hon. Member for Stockport is apparently under the impression that after this re-organization took place patronage went on and that fresh appointments were made. Now, I have taken great pains to get also at these facts from Returns which are at the disposal of all hon. Members, and the number and dates of which I have given. I will take the Departments the hon. Member refers to. In the Secretary's Department of the Admiralty, as between 1869 and 1873, the total net reduction was 13 persons, and the economy in the salaries, after deducting pensions, was £3,000 a-year. In the Accountant General's Department the net reduction was 55 persons. That is to say, that we found the Department redundant by so large a number that we were able in that first re-organization to reduce it by 55 persons. The salaries were reduced by £18,500 a-year and the pensions increased by £9,000, so that the net economy was

  1921
  £9,500 a-year. But it would not be fair to leave it in that way. I must remind the House that at that time, as was well known in Parliament, it was absolutely necessary to re-arrange the salaries of these offices, It fell to our lot to make that re-arrangement, but I cannot find how much ought to be allowed for the re-arrangement of salaries. In the re-organization, however, there was a saving of no less than 68 persons in the Civil employment of the Admiralty, resulting in a gross saving of £12,000 a-year, minus the money allowed for on account of the rearrangement of salaries. And now as to fresh appointments being made after re-organization takes place. Let me tell the hon. Member what I think he will be glad to hear. He is under the impression that after that great re-organization was effected fresh appointments were made, and patronage was again in vogue—went on "merrily," I think was the expression he used. He seems to think that having got rid of a certain number of officers we derived satisfaction from appointing our friends to the vacant places. Now, I will give the House the facts on that point—and they are taken also from the Return, where they are set out in full. In 1867—before the re-organization—22 Civil appointments had been made in the Admiralty; in 1868 the number was 25; in 1869, after and during the re-organization, no clerk was appointed, although at that time those appointments did not take place under the system of competitive examination, but were simply the patronage of the Department. In 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1873 no appointments whatever were made—that is to say, during the whole of these five years the appointment of Civil officers to the Admiralty had ceased altogether. I think it will be seen that we were honest in the reduction we had determined to make, forfeiting for five years the whole of our patronage, which our Predecessors had enjoyed to the tune of above 20 appointments a year. But the great reduction in the number of appointments was not seen in the Civil Department only. In the Naval Department, in 1867, 282 officers of all ranks were appointed; in 1868 the number was 239; in 1869 that number was reduced to 164; in 1870 the number was 135; in 1871 the number was 173; in 1872 it was
  1922
  163, and in 1873 the number had been reduced to 115 officers of all ranks. We were of opinion that there was an enormous redundancy in the ranks of the Naval Department, whether of naval or Civil officers, and Mr. Baxter and myself having undertaken the most obnoxious and disagreeable operation of vigorous cutting down establishments, we went straight through with the work, and during those five years, under my own administration and that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), that policy of steadily reducing the number of officers as well as the charge, and of absolutely giving up the whole of our Civil patronage, all the naval patronage which it was possible to give up—of course we could not altogether stop the entry of cadets—the work was diligently prosecuted, with the effect I have described. I have not, unfortunately, been able to lay my hands on a Return prepared for me by the Admiralty about 10 or 15 years after that great reorganization, but I remember the figures well, and they show that when the Pension List had been depleted by deaths and other causes, the whole economy we had effected amounted to between £150,000 and £200,000 a-year. There may have been individual mistakes as to this officer or that officer, and as to this Civil servant or that Civil servant, but if the House will trust me that I am stating the facts correctly, I think they will allow, at any rate, that the great re-organization which we undertook at that time, and carried through in those years, was a thoroughly honest re-organization in the interests of the public and the taxpayer. No one can be charged with having carried it out from any selfish or personal motive, for our own object was the public good, and we set ourselves to perform the task. We did it honestly, we abandoned the whole of our patronage, we determined that this enormous redundancy of officers should be attacked as vigourously as it could be, and we did so attack it with success. Although we had done so much, I was of opinion when I left Office that we had not gone far enough, but that it ought to rest with those who followed us to carry that reduction still further. I am not sure whether I left it as an official Memorandum, but I

  1923
  certainly left for those who came after me, in an unofficial document, a statement in which I pointed out that, while the Naval Department had been successfully dealt with, there had not been time to attack the number of the Civil Department sufficiently, and we left to our successors certain information to guide them if they should think fit to under take the work. The Government which followed did undertake the operation, and the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) particularly took up the question vigorously, doing me the honour to communicate to me at the time the heads of the re-organization he proposed to take further in hand. He took the matter up where we had left off. The details of this work do not appear in these papers, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able, perhaps, to state them from memory. At any rate the general results can be seen in later Parliamentary returns. While we had reduced the numbers of the Civil Departments of the Admiralty by—as I have shown to the House—83, 68 of them being in the offices of the Secretaries and Accountant General, the new First Lord of the Admiralty took up the matter again, commencing at the point where we had left off. If I am not mistaken—for I have only a partial official Return to refer to—he succeeded in making a further reduction in the number of civilian servants in the Admiralty connected with the different Departments of no less than 101 persons. I may be wrong by one or two, but that was about the reduction made. So far as I can tell from the Return, and it is not very easy to pick out the facts, the saving actually made by that re-arrangement was something between £22,000 and £23,000 a-year. The arrangement was subject, of course, as former re-arrangements had been, to certain increases of salaries, but, on the whole, a very handsome amount was actually saved by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope I have honestly and simply stated to the House what the story of my great re-organization was. Hon. Gentlemen who have not had the misfortune to be concerned in an operation of that kind may think it is very simple, but when you find a Department with 200 officials in it too many, when you find a Service with 1,500
  1924
  officers in it too many, it is not an easy task to undertake, and undertake promptly, the bringing down of those too over-crowded lists to the amount requisite for the Public Service. Let me assure the House of this, that if on the one hand that operation is a very difficult one and requires great pains and patience, and indifference to abuse, and a determination to do one's duty, however disagreeable it may be, on the other hand the reward is all the greater. You cannot carry on a department efficiently for business if you have in that department people running over each other—if you have three men to do the work of two. It is absolutely necessary for the efficient conduct of a great business—and there is no business greater than that of the Admiralty—that you should bring the number of people employed down to a reasonable figure—to such an amount approximately as a private firm would. But you have to deal with persons who, whether the system is a good or bad one, and that I do not propose to discuss, are members of a permanent Civil Service, with rights given to them by Acts of Parliament, and by decisions of Parliament, with rights which have often been subjected to discussion in Parliament. I venture to say, however, that in nine out of every 10 discussions in Parliament the question has been, not whether these public servants are paid too much, but whether they are paid enough. Constant pressure is put on Ministers from all parts of the House—I do not name any one in particular—to grant these demands for larger remuneration, larger superannuation, larger compensation for Public Services, and it is only when such a debate as this takes place that those who are responsible for the Public Service can find breathing time, and can find support to meet the constant pressure which is put upon them in every direction. Now let me say one word as to the practical suggestion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings). The hon. Gentleman suggests in his Resolution that it would be desirable that officials still able to render service should be provided with employment in other Departments. Now, what I think we ought rather to do is, to see that the Public Service has in each Department officers well suited for the work of the Department, and that too

  1925
  many are not employed. It is our primary duty, not to provide officers with employment, but to provide the Public Service with efficient officers, and, therefore, it strikes me that the hon. Member has, in his Resolution, rather put the cart before the horse. He asks us to provide persons with employment. What we ought to do is, to provide the Public Service with officers fitted to do the duty required of them. But if he asks me whether I agree with him as to the principle of his Resolution rather than as to its language, I am bound to say that, as far as his suggestion can be carried out, no one is more anxious, no one has, by official acts, shown greater anxiety that it should be carried out than myself. Every time we undertook—when I say we, I am speaking of the Governments to which I belonged, for, personally, I was concerned in only one re-organization—when we set about re-organization, we did our utmost to obtain employment elsewhere for persons who were redundant in a particular office. It is not an easy operation. If you have been trained all your life, say in a shipbuilder's office, you will not become, at 45 years of age, a good bank clerk by the simple operation of being transferred to a stool in a bank. Of course, it is the duty of the Treasury, and of all those concerned in these operations, to do their utmost to see that if persons superannuated as redundant can be employed elsewhere, they should be, but also that they should have work for which their training fitted them. I have known numerous cases in which men, preferring the full salary of office to the superannuation allowance, have gone to other offices, and have turned out utterly unfitted for the new duty assigned to them. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member puts the case quite in the right way; for it is not so much our first object to find work for redunntant clerks, but to see that the offices contain none but men fit for their work, always, however, treating the redundant list as a principal source from whence capable men may be drawn. I do not think that in the words used in the Resolution this principle is fittingly expressed, and I cannot support it; but I think the hon. Member, in bringing his Resolution forward, intended to do, and has done, a good service; and while I have done my
  1926
  best to supplement or correct some of the statements he has made, I feel certain of this, that whoever may be in Office, they will not regret that the debate we have had this night has taken place.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he did not desire to travel over the ground occupied by previous speakers; but he did wish to say that he, as a humble Representative of the Service to which he was proud to belong, was deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) for having made this Motion. He was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he handled the subject, for the light he had brought to bear upon it, and for the deep research he had exhibited in his statesmanlike speech. Whether he agreed with the hon. Member in all he had said was another matter. Now, a word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers). Although he was a political opponent of the right hon. Gentleman, and though, as a naval man, he disapproved of much of the work, or rather of the mischief, the right hon. Gentleman had done, he was always ready to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by one motive, and that was to do that which he believed to be best for the Public Service. He assented to all the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the reduction he found it necessary to make in the Executive branch of the Navy—a reduction of the Staff by 1,500—but that was not the point now before the House. The hon. Member for Stockport did not make that part of his statement, so that the right hon. Gentleman was dragging a red herring across the path, he was taking credit herring that which no one disputed. The real point of the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jennings) was the misuse of funds for many years past in the retiring of clerks and the increase of the Civil Establishment connected with the Admiralty and other Departments. Therefore, the getting rid of 1,500 naval officers was really beside the question under discussion. He admitted, as every naval man admitted, that when we passed from wooden to iron battle ships the number of men on the Establishment of the Navy was far in excess of the requirements of the Service, and he gave the right hon. Gen-

  1927
  tleman credit for the way in which he handled the question. Though from an economical point of view naval men agreed that the arrangement was not a good thing for the taxpayers, they considered it was a good thing for their brother officers, and he, having the highest opinion of his brother officers, and feeling that they were always underpaid, was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the vigorous retirement scheme which he introduced and succeeded in passing. But that was quite a different question to the one under discussion. What was the moral to be drawn from this discussion. Why, that it was a monstrous abuse to retire civilian clerks—he cared not what their standing might be in the Admiralty—at the age of 45 or 50 with salaries varying from £678 to £700 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), in his brilliant retirement scheme, never proposed to give more than £600 to post-captains with good service pensions at the age of 55. A post-captain had great experience in the command of ships; he had had to take the flag of England everywhere and see that it was honoured. He (Admiral Field) valued such a man at a higher rate than any chief clerk in the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman would have done well to see that the retiring allowances of the Civil branch were never in excess of those of the able and distinguished men who retired at the age of 55 with £600, including good service pensions. He thought the House would agree with him that the services of those gentlemen who lived in comfort at home could not be compared with those of naval men who followed the sea from their boyhood to their retirement. An Admiral's half-pay was £450 a-year; he had occasional employment—perhaps once in seven years—when he received full pay. It seemed to him (Admiral Field) that the retiring allowances of the Civil clerks ought to bear some relation to the pay awarded to the officers on active service. As a matter of fact, half of the Civil clerks in the Admiralty and other branches of the Public Service were not wanted, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), who prided himself on the retirement of 1,500 naval officers, had seen his way to replace some of the civilian element by able and gallant officers who would have been content to
  1928
  serve for their half-pay, plus the extra allowance for extra duty, he would have effected great economy and have obviated a good deal of heart-burning in the Naval Service. It was a monstrous scandal that when they came to deal with the greatest Public Service in the country, for the Navy was the greatest Public Service—the Admiralty were yearly entrusted with over £12,000,000 sterling to expend on the Navy of the greatest maritime power in the would—they should find there were only four naval men who had any voice in the expenditure of the money granted by Parliament. Naval men were powerless, because they were in the hands of the Civil branch; and if this discussion led the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to consider the question of organizing his Board on such a basis that naval men should have a greater voice in the administration of naval affairs, it would be most valuable. There were only three Naval Lords who exercised any executive functions, the fourth being controller; the rest of the administration was in the hands of civilians, who knew nothing about the Naval Service. He knew nothing about the men who had been retired, and he did not care to inquire. He believed what had been said, that many of the men received salaries far beyond their deserts. He hoped more light would be let in upon the question, for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was no answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings). As usual, the ex-officials on the Opposition Benches supported the officials on the Treasury Bench; it was only they, poor, humble, naval men, who suffered. All that he and his hon. Friends wanted was efficiency in the Naval Service, and they maintained that the only way to administer the Navy efficiently was to get rid of a great many civilians, and replace them by gentlemen of naval experience. It would be much more economical for them all. Naval men desired to serve them for the honour of serving them, and not for the dirty pay they received. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members might jeer that sentiment; but he felt warmly upon this point. Inquiry into the system of administration in both the Naval and Military Services would do a

  1929
  great deal of good, if it tended to draw more attention to the doings of the two great spending Departments. He hoped the First Lord would himself look into this question. He knew the noble Lord desired to do his best for the Service, and he honoured him for the manner in which he had brought his intellect to bear on naval matters. He knew no man who had done more for the good of the Service, and who had shown a greater zeal for its efficiency, than the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) dwelt upon the Civil administration of the Navy in his time. But it was since his time that a great abuse had been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was the man to introduce the system under which there was a permanent Naval Secretary. That office was abolished, however, by Lord Northbrook in 1882. A civilian was appointed to take the place of the Naval Secretary. He (Admiral Field) did not want to make any reflections on the hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position of Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. McGregor); but he invited hon. Gentlemen to see that official in the witness box upstairs, and then say whether they did not think that a naval man would fill the office better than the present occupant. He was confident that the more attention was drawn to the administration of the Admiralty the sooner impartial men would arrive at the conclusion that more naval men were required. Every Naval Lord should have a post-captain as his private secretary, for when a Naval Lord went out of office there should be some men in the Department who understood what had been done. It was quite clear that while there were only three naval men on the Board of Admiralty and all the rest were civilians, the Navy would never be administered from a naval point of view.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) for the very able speech in which he has brought this subject before the House. The great objection which I had to his speech, which caused me to interrupt him, was that he was calling attention to a state of things which existed 100 years ago, but does not exist now. He made the House to understand that these re-
  1930
  organizations were made for the purpose of jobbery. He plainly stated that there were certain families which were especially benefited, and he made use of one expression, that some poor devil of a writer was displaced by a gentleman with £800 a-year. Now, what are the facts? Let me remind the House of the conditions under which gentlemen enter the Civil Service. I have no power to alter them. The conditions are established by Act of Parliament, and are enforced by public opinion. If a vacancy occurs, notice has to be given to the Civil Service Commission, and it will be filled by the gentleman who passes the best competitive examination, and the individual who passes that examination enters into a sort of contract with the Government by which he becomes a higher division clerk, and entitled to permanent employment at a certain salary, with a pension after a certain number of years. The same rule regulates the lower division clerks. The pension is regulated by length of service, and the amount of salary which he receives on his retirement. The longer he serves the greater his pension, until he attains the maximum amount of pension at the age of 60. The Heads of Departments have to deal with a stereotyped system, and have no more power to depart from it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to depart from the contracts he enters into with the public creditors. Now, what is the object of these reorganizations? There seems to be an impression that the only object is to retire officials at high pensions in order to fill their places with other officials shortly to be entitled to similar pensions. But the object of every re-organization has been to substitute cheaper clerical labour for dearer. I am absolutely certain that if no re-organization scheme had been carried out during the last 20 years the amount payable in salaries and pensions would be far in excess of that which is now paid, and the Office would be absolutely unworkable. I will go through the various re-organizations, beginning with 1857. Thirteen clerks were then pensioned in the Accountant General's Department, and three in the Secretary's Department. In 1869—for this the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was responsible, the details of which he has

  1931
  clearly put before the House—39 clerks in the Accountant's Department and 11 in the Secretary's were pensioned. I admit that some of these were young men, six were from 31 to 37. Then my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) carried out a re-organization in 1878, by which 65 clerks were pensioned in the Accountant's Department and 17 from the Secretary's Department. There seems to be an impression that these schemes are carried out at the mere will of the officials of the Department. I doubt if ever there was a Committee composed of more competent men than that which sat over the re-organization of 1878. The Members of that Committee were, first, Sir Massey Lopes, who was, as all who knew him will admit, an admirable man of business; and next, Lord Lingen, formerly Secretary to the Treasury. Associated with him was Sir Robert Hamilton, Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade, and with these three gentlemen was the then Assistant Secretary to the Admiralty. That re-organization was very large. The only other re-organization to which my hon. Friend alluded was one for which I was responsible in 1885, under which 83 clerks were pensioned. Now, what has been the tendency of these re-organizations? The tendency has been greatly to decrease and not to increase the number of higher division clerks, and to substitute in their places either lower division clerks or copyists who are not entitled to pensions. I will quote figures which will show how great the decrease has been. I may, however, first state to the House that if re-organization at the Admiralty seems somewhat chronic, it is due to the fact that during the last 25 years there has been a concentration of scattered Departments at the Admiralty, the result of which has been that the reserve of working power which every Department has, when concentrated, becomes in proportion greater, and those who have the concentrated Departments under them say that they have an excess of working power which they do not wish to retain, especially if its retention will ultimately add a large increase to the non-effective vote. I will first take the Accountant General's Department. The number of higher division clerks in that Department in 1858 was 123 out of a total
  1932
  establishment of 141. This proportion held good up to the year 1868, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) came in with his scheme of re-organization. The number immediately decreased, and has gone on steadily decreasing, though the total numbers of the Department have not largely diminished. In 1869 the number of higher division clerks was 154 out of 195, and then a number of departments were added to the Accountant General's Department until in the year 1875, out of a total number of 265 on the establishment, 135 only were higher division clerks entitled to pensions. Then my right hon. Friend brought in his re-organization scheme, and there was immediately a heavy fall in the number of higher division clerks, who had been reduced from 135 in 1875 to 48 in 1887. My hon. Friend said that the cost of supervision now is greater than before; but that is not so, because the officers were supervised by the higher division clerks, and their number has decreased and is decreasing, and in place of higher division clerks have been brought in lower division clerks and Admiralty writers. A considerable quantity of writers are not entitled to pensions, and the result of these changes has been not only to diminish the total cost of the establishment, but the claims of those who are entitled to pensions. In the Secretary's Department the change has been more remarkable. In 1854 the Department was composed of 54 higher division clerks. In 1877 my right hon. Friend's re-organization scheme applied to that Department, and there was an immediate reduction in the number of higher division clerks, and they are now 28, as against 54 34 years ago. As vacancies occur in the Department they are filled either by lower division clerks or by Admiralty writers. Therefore it does not admit of argument, but is incontrovertible, that these re-organizations are a benefit to the public; and that they do diminish the expenditure of the Departments and the claim which the officers of the Departments have to pensions. We are now in a transitional period. Much the same change is taking place in the Civil Service that has taken place in the Army. We have to deal with the relics of an old system by which the great majority, if not those who entered under it, were

  1933
  entitled to pensions; we are gradually wiping off these pensions, and in proportion as the men retire who are entitled to pensions we endeavour to bring in a cheaper class of labour which is not entitled to pension. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that there was a re-organization scheme of the Admiralty in embryo which he was anxious to stop. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite I have undergone all the agonies of re-organizing, and if there is anything more hateful than another it is for anyone to attempt to re-organize a Department under him. No one who has not done it has any idea of the amount of trouble, anxiety, and annoyance such re-organization causes; and no one—unless he thought it absolutely necessary for the efficiency of his Department, or was prompted by a sense of public duty in the desire to diminish the cost of his Department—would ever embark in such a troublesome operation. I will now indicate to the House the nature of the operation which I hope I may be able, if the House assents, to carry out, and by which the annual expenditure on the Admiralty will be very largely reduced. When it was proposed to establish the Intelligence Department in accordance with the wishes of my noble and gallant Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) I went to the heads of the several Departments, and they one and all told me that they could carry on their work with less men than were under them. I appointed a Committee subsequently, who have carefully gone through the re-organization of each Department. As a result we find we can save something like £40,000 a-year in salaries, which will amount to a reduction of something like £50,000 a-year when the scheme comes into thorough operation. But to do that we must pension those we retire, and that means a temporary increase in the pension list. Hon. Members, when they object to pensions being given in cases of the re-organization of Public Departments forget that those who receive those pensions have already earned them in the Public Service.
  MR. JENNINGS: Does the noble Lord contend that the men of 32 who are pensioned off have earned heavy pensions?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: All the officials who retired on pensions had
  1934
  earned them. In every single instance it was a mere forestalment of a liability which the State must meet. If a number of officials are retained in a Department when there is little work for them, and when their salaries are increasing every three years, the operation is not only costly, but will not conduce to the efficiency of the Department. Every year that men remain in office increases the amount of pension they are entitled to claim; and therefore, when they are compulsorily retired, they merely receive in the form of pensions what they are entitled to from their length of service. The Royal Commission which sat to consider this subject—of which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of North Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley) was Chairman—reported that the only security against abuses of re-organization with respect to the granting of excessive bonuses and pensions was to associate a Treasury official with each re-organization scheme.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that the Commission had reported that in two cases of re-organization abuses had occurred.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes; and yet in those very cases high Treasury officials were associated with the re-organization. The fact is that the work of the Admiralty has enormously increased during the last 20 years; and if it can be shown that, notwithstanding that increase in the amount of work, the cost of the Department has not materially increased during that period, the deduction is that the work must be done at a cheaper rate. The cost of the Secretary's Department in 1866. 22 years ago, was £27,200 a-year, and in 1886 the cost was £26,000, showing an actual decrease in the period. Then, again, the cost of the Accountant General's Department, which was £62,100 in 1871, was only £62,000 last year. Therefore the House will see that instead of there having been an increase of cost in those two Departments during recent years, their cost has actually diminished. The figures I have quoted will, I think, entirely dispose of the allegation that there has been any undue extravagance with regard to those Departments. In dealing with this question, the hon. Member has looked at it simply from the pounds, shillings,

  1935
  and pence point of view, without taking into consideration the amount of work which the Departments perform. It is constantly objected against the Government Departments that they do their work in an old-fashioned kind of way, and that they decline to carry out new ideas. But if it be desired to adopt modern ideas the men of the old-fashioned ideas must be compulsorily retired. Those who are responsible for the efficient administration of a Department have, however, to look not merely at the cost of establishments, but also at the work that has to be done. If a man has to carry out great schemes of reform in accordance with modern ideas, he must be allowed some choice of the instruments for carrying out such reforms. Under the scheme of Dockyard re-organization for which I was responsible in 1885, four officials were compulsorily retired; but the result has been that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been saved every year since, whilst the saving in the first year covered three or four times over the capitalized value of the salaries of the new appointments made under the scheme. The hon. Member has referred to-night to the question of pensions. Her Majesty's Government have given their most careful attention to the question of pensions, upon which the Royal Commission was about to report. If we complain now of the large Pension Vote, on the other hand, it is satisfactory to know that the last Superannuation Act diminished the pensions to which officials are entitled. It is admitted on every hand that the present pension system does not work altogether satisfactorily; and I doubt whether it is wise to entitle a man to a triennial increase of his income independent of the work to be performed. But until the system is altered we must make the best of it. My hon. Friend objects to the pensions which have been paid in cases of premature retirement under certain re-organization schemes at the Admiralty. To that I have to reply that if the entry be properly regulated the retirement will take care of itself. In 1885 I was first responsible for the Admiralty, and I found that there was a considerable excess of clerical labour in that Department. I accordingly stopped all entry. Since then there have been 12 vacancies among the clerks of the higher division, three
  1936
  among the lower division, and six among the writers, none of which have been filled up, and the only increase has been in the employment of a few men and boy copyists. I shall continue to stop the entry of the higher division clerks. With regard to the transfer of officers to another Department, Her Majesty's Government have given great attention to this side of the question, and I may inform the House that we have already transferred no less than eight clerks from one Department where they were not required to another Department. That number may not seem very great; but to anyone who understands the difficulty of making these changes this fact will show that we are working with sincerity and with a certain amount of success. I hope that the House will not accept the Resolution of my hon. Friend. We certainly cannot agree to it. The Resolution censures previous re-organizations at the Admiralty, and I have endeavoured to show the House that such re-organizations were, on the whole, for the public interest. But a more vital objection which I have to the Resolution is that it speaks of officials being "provided with employment." I altogether object to those words. If there is work to be done it must be done, and persons must be employed to do it; but the money under our control is not given to us for charitable purposes, and it is a most dangerous doctrine that because a man is once on the establishment he is to be provided for life with employment. I accept, however, to a great extent the principle for which my hon. Friend contends, and I hope he may see his way to withdraw his Resolution and accept the Resolution which I will now propose instead.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member for Stockport prepared to withdraw his Resolution in favour of that of the noble Lord?
  MR. JENNINGSsaid, he was not prepared to reply to the statement of the noble Lord at that moment, because other members wished to address the House; but he was certainly not prepared to withdraw his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, whilst of opinion that when the re-organization of a Department becomes neces-

  1937
  sary, full inquiry should be made into the wants of other Departments with a view to the continued public employment of redundant officers, is not prepared, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission upon Civil Service Establishments, to anticipate its report by laying down any absolute rule as to the provision of employment for persons not required in the Department to which they have been originally appointed."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) deserved the thanks of the country for bringing forward this Motion. His noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) had asked the House to look at this question from a common-sense point of view. He agreed to that proposal. They had had re-organization after reorganization, the same thing had been done over and over again, and what had been the result? At that moment they had ships without guns, and no one was responsible. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the Navy was not strong enough; but he did not say by what amount it was not strong enough. They had a system at the Admiralty under which no one was responsible, and they might go on re-organizing as long as they liked under that system, and the result would be always the same—they would still have the same unsatisfactory condition of affairs. He gave his noble Friend great credit for his reforms in the Dockyards; he had undertaken those reforms in a business-like spirit; he had saved the country large sums of money; and, if he continued the same course, he had no doubt that the country would get greater value for its money than it did at present. But he wanted to point out that, although the reforms were good, they had nothing whatever to do with the efficiency of the Fleet, and as long as the present system lasted he might reorganize again, as he believed his noble Friend intended to do very shortly; but, the same unsatisfactory state of affairs would continue, and they would have naval officers getting up in their places in that House to make statements, which could not be contradicted, to show that the Fleet was not as efficient as it ought to be for the national defence in time of
  1938
  war. Therefore, he objected to any Departmental re-organizations. They had had them, as he had said, repeatedly, and with the usual result of increasing the salaries of some of the people whom they were re-organizing. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had just presided over a Committee which was mainly composed of Departmental officials; and although he had not seen the Report, he would lay a large wager that it proposed to increase the salary of some Member of the Committee.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There is not a word of truth in that suggestion.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he was glad to hear it; but, in that case, it would be a most unusual Departmental Committee Report. They must deal fairly in the matter of pensions. He pointed out that the system of pensions had been arranged by their ancestors. It was a contract entered into with the Service that certain offices should be taken, and that certain pensions should be received, although it seemed an extravagrant thing that a man should retire at between the ages of 30 and 40. But he objected altogether to bonuses being given in addition to pensions. Why a man should get a pension, and, when there was re organization, get a bonus into the bargain, he did not see at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) and his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had spoken of re-organization as being a distasteful duty. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend should describe it in that way. They were paid to do that work, and if they were all to begin making a song about what was distasteful to them in the discharge of their duty they would leave a large part of their duty unperformed. Therefore, he most strongly objected to either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh or his noble Friend taking any credit to themselves for doing what was simply their duty in the way of making reforms. There had been a good deal said on the question of clerks at the Admiralty. He had said before, and he repeated it then, that there was a large number of very highly-paid clerks in the Admiralty who received, besides, large pensions. He had not a

  1939
  word to say about them personally, but he wished to point out that they knew very little of the duty they were called upon to perform; their responsibility was very small, and he said that naval officers could be got to do the work far better and cheaper, by which means they would be able to fill up a very large gap that existed at the present time between the Admiralty and the Service. It was that gap which had a great deal to do with the mismanagement and maladministration of the Admiralty, and which, as long as it continued, would prevent the country from obtaining the necessary efficiency in the Navy. He had always observed that few Members of Governments wanted Departmental reform either at the Admiralty or the War Office, or at any great spending Department; and it was curious to notice that whenever reforms were demanded in the Services the occupants of the two Front Benches got up and expressed approval of what had been done; they supported each other, and that he conceived to be the great difficulty which men who desired reform had to contend with. That was a constant occurrence in the House, and there was no doubt that lately that method of controversy had been employed more than was usually the case. But he hoped his noble Friend would help, to the very best of his ability, the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) when he came to the examination of witnesses before the Commission on the system of Admiralty administration. He was convinced that if his noble Friend did that the system would be altered; but until that was done they might go on re-organizing and spending money until they were blue in the face. For those reasons he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport would not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he desired to give the reason why he should vote against the Amendment of the noble Lord and in favour of the original Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport. He understood the position of the noble Lord to be that, as the Royal Commission was now dealing with the matter in question, it would not be consistent with decorum to anticipate the decision at which the Committee
  1940
  might arrive. But he pointed out to the noble Lord that the Royal Commission had already reported upon the subject covered by the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport, that it had already admitted the fact that men had been forced to become useless burdens on the State, and expressed their opinion against the practice. They were, therefore, in no sense anticipating the labours of this very useful Commission; on the contrary, the Chairman in that House had said that they would be strengthening the hands of the Commission by showing that, as far as possible, the House would support them in their decision. He did not intend to go into details which had been carefully avoided by the noble Lord. Every one of the statements made by the noble Lord was perfectly true no doubt, but they did not touch the point; the general statements which had been made left the matters of fact entirely untouched before the House. He thought, therefore, they would do well to strengthen the hands of the Royal Commission and the hands of the Government, who had declared, in acceding to a Resolution on the same lines as that now before the House, that they desired to carry out reforms in the Public Departments. What the House was asked to do by the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport was to declare that men between the ages of 30 and 40 years should not be put on the Pension List, at sums nearly equivalent to the salaries which they are receiving, in consequence of the enforced abolition of their offices. The desire was that these persons should not continue to live without work at the expense of the State while they were still able to do good service; and, if their offices were abolished, their pensions should be abolished also.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, the desire of Her Majesty's Government is exactly in accordance with the view which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bradlaugh). The hon. Gentleman desires that, if it is necessary to reduce the establishment of a Department, the services of those clerks who may be retired should be availed of in other Departments instead of being lost to the Public Service. That is the course which Her Majesty's Government have followed

  1941
  during the time they have been in Office. There have been no fresh examinations for first-class clerkships in either the higher or lower divisions of the Service in the past two years; these have been entirely stopped, and the redundant officers are really on lower salaries since the re-organization took place. I wish to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings)—who, I know, is actuated by a sincere desire to effect economy in the Public Service—that if the Resolution he has moved were accepted by the Government, the immediate effect would be that a number of redundant officers must be retained and paid for their services; that changes, which might be for the good of the Public Service, must be stopped, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has expressed it, there would be in some Offices clerks and other officials absolutely "over-running each other;" because the voice of Parliament had declared that there should be no re-organization in the matter of pensions on retirement, and that officers who are still able and willing to render service for the public money shall be provided with employment in other Departments, instead of being forced to become useless burdens upon the country. I can only say, with very considerable experience of other than Public Business, that if the director of any great establishment were told that he is not to part with an officer unless he is able to find employment for him in some other branch, such a state of things would be absolutely fatal to efficiency of administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh has spoken of the difficulty of re-organization. There is in that work enormous difficulty, and I can speak for myself with reference to the re-organization which took place when I was at the Admiralty in 1878, and say that nothing but the actual necessity of substituting younger and more efficient men—in other words, much cheaper labour—justified me in proposing the changes which took place. A great many of those changes were approved by Sir Massey Lopes, and by Sir Robert Hamilton, who, I believe, is recognized as one of the most competent public servants—they were absolutely satisfied with the changes brought about. But
  1942
  that is not the ground on which alone a scheme of re-organization can be defended. Re-organizations can only be defended when they conduce to the efficiency of the Public Service, and it is on the ground of efficiency that for my part, have always recognized the necessity for change in Public Departments. I entertain all the objections which can be urged against putting men on the pension list who are young, and from whom further service may be expected in the public interest; but, Sir, some of these men are incapable of performing that service, and the conditions upon which they entered the Service are such that it is not in the power of the Head of any Public Department to deprive them of the right to continue employment unless they are pensioned, or to reduce or stop the increment of their salary. It was supposed by some that right hon. Gentlemen who hold Office have authority or power by which they can say to a clerk in a Public Office—"We no longer require your services; you can go," or, "You are no longer entitled to an increment of salary, and we discontinue it." But they have no power to do that. The clerk in a Public Office has obtained his appointment under the Public Service Acts on conditions which entitle him to remain there so long as he performs his duty without fault. My noble Friend has spoken of the maladministration of the Admiralty; but by the terms of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stockport he condemns us to go on with precisely the same staff, the same material, and precisely the same machinery as we have now—we are not to change or retire a single man; we are not to change a single civilian, because if we were to do so the civilian would have to be pensioned, and no alteration is possible, although we desire to make every possible improvement in the Public Service. As I have said, we have not had any examinations for first-class clerkships during the last two years. I have myself been responsible for the transfer of several first-class clerks to the Treasury, and for the cessation of several offices, because it was not, in my opinion, necessary that they should be filled up. We are prepared to continue in the course we have taken; we are prepared to make the greatest economies we can in using

  1943
  every redundant officer in the Service by appointing him to such work as he may be fit for; and we shall continue to abstain from making fresh appointments to certain divisions in the Public Service by withholding from the Commissioners instructions to hold the examinations. More than that we think it would be contrary to the interests of the Public Service that we should do, and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not ask the House to come to a Division on his Motion, which, I say, would most injuriously tie our hands and prevent reform in any Public Department for some time to come; whilst, on the other hand, if he accepts the Amendment which my noble Friend has proposed, he will greatly strengthen our hands in employing redundant officers in any Department for which they are fitted, and where they may be useful, and will also contribute to the efficiency of the Public Service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, rising in his place, said: Mr. Speaker, I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. Member for Stockport has the right of reply.
  MR. JENNINGSsaid, he was asked not to press the Motion he had moved, but he failed to see that any reason had been assigned for its withdrawal. He had with great care and considerable industry examined this subject, and had brought together a mass of facts which fully justified the Resolution, and he was now asked to say before the country that those facts did not justify the Resolution, and that he had been trifling with the time of the House and with the great subject he had in hand. It appeared to him that that would be a ridiculous position for him to take up. He was not at all surprised at the fact that an ex-Minister should have come to the aid of Ministers—it was a game of Parliamentary Box and Cox, with which they were familiar. He called the attention of the House to the way in which he had been treated, when, quoting from a Paper every statement and every word of which was official, he was met with cries of dissent from the Treasury Bench by an official who had not read his own Return. He had cited the case of a permanent official whose office had been created for him,
  1944
  and he was challenged to give the name of that official. But why had not the Department given the name?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise simply to correct a misapprehension under which I am sure my hon. Friend has unwittingly fallen. He refers to the case of a Permanent Secretary at the Admiralty. The officer in question was Mr. Vernon Lushington. There were at the time two Permanent Secretaries at the Admiralty; and as, in my judgment, two Permanent Secretaries were not required, I requested Mr. Vernon Lushington to retire, and he was retired, a County Court Judgeship being found for him, but on the condition that he would not draw his pension, except to the extent necessary to make up his emoluments to the amount which he previously received. Lord Northbrook, on the death of the Naval Secretary, having appointed the Permanent Secretary to take his place, there has been effected a saving to the country of £1,500 a-year.
  MR. JENNINGSsaid, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not affect his original statement, that an officer having been abolished, after a few years another officer was appointed to fill his place; and there were many other similar cases. The way in which his statements had been met was not a sufficient inducement to him to withdraw his Motion. The Resolution simply stated that certain re-organizations had increased the Pension List, and recommended that, in any further re-organizations, officials who were still able to render service for the public money should be provided with employment. But that was the very thing which the First Lord of the Admiralty was willing should be done—he had said he was quite willing, if he could, to find employment for officials who were retired. That being so, he asked the House to adopt the Resolution—altered by a few words if necessary, to cover the point of the First Lord. "Wherever practicable," or "as few as possible," added after the word employment, would meet the case. He called attention to the fact that they had been told that the Royal Commission then sitting was all important, and that its opinion was to be treated with the greatest deference. He wished to do that, and this was the opinion of the Commissioners upon

  1945
  the very subject to which he called attention. They said, in paragraph 110 of the first Report, that it had often been the case that places rendered vacant had been filled up, that men had been allowed to retire who should not have been retired, and that others had been retained whose services should have been dispensed with. Finally, he called attention to the fact that the First Lord, in his statement, entirely omitted to state the heavy charges placed on the Pension List for bonuses. Looking at the facts as he had stated them, he could not consent to say that he was wrong in moving this Resolution, or that any part of the Resolution was erroneous. Ho believed the course recommended was advantageous to the Public Service, and to the strict accuracy of the statements in support of it he was ready to bind himself.
  MR. JAMES STUARTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 94: Majority 19.

  AYES

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Ellis, J.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Esslemont, P.

  Beckett, E. W.

  Evershed, S.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Fenwick, C.

  Finucane, J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Bolton, T. D.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Bright, Jacob

  Foster, Sir W. B.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Bryce, J.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Burt, T.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Carew, J. L.

  Graham, R. C.

  Channing, F. A.

  Haldane, R. B.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Conway, M.

  Harrington, E.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Harris, M.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Cossham, H.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Cox, J. R.

  Hingley, B.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Hooper, J.

  Crilly, D.

  Hughes - Hallett, Col F. C.

  Cross, H. S.

  Deasy, J.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Dillon, J.

  Joicey, J.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Jordan, J.

  1946

  Lalor, R.

  Randell, D.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Reid, H. B.

  Leahy, J.

  Roberts, J.

  M'Donald, P.

  Roe, T.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Rowlands, J.

  Rowntree, J.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Royden, T. B.

  Mayne, T.

  Russell, T. W.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Sexton, T.

  Morley, A.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Morrison, W.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Stack, J.

  Nolan, J.

  Stuart, J.

  Norris, E. S.

  Sullivan, D.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Summers, W.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Tanner, C. K.

  O'Connor, A.

  Thomas, D. A.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Tuite, J.

  O'Hea, P.

  Waddy, S. D.

  O'Keeffe, F. A.

  Wayman, T.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Williams, A. J.

  Pease, A. E.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Woodhead, J.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  TELLERS.

  Power, P. J.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Priestley, B.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Quinn, T.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Baring, T. C.

  Gray, C. W.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Grimston, Viscount

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Halsey, T. F.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Beckett, W.

  Bigwood, J.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Bond, G. H.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Knowles, L.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Lafone, A.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. G.

  Darling, C. J.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Long, W. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Farquharson, H. R.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Madden, D. H.

  Finch, G. H.

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  1947

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  More, R. J.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Smith, A.

  Moss, R.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Mount, W. G.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Noble, W.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Norton, R.

  Townsend, F.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Powell, F. S.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  TELLERS.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 20th June.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That the re-organizations in the Accountant General's and Secretary's Departments of the Admiralty have been injurious to the public interests, by resulting in increased charges for those Departments, and by needlessly adding to extravagant pensions and bonuses; and that in any further re-organizations, officials who are still able and willing to render service for the public money shall be provided with employment in other Departments, instead of being forced to become useless burdens upon the Country.

  VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BILL.
  (Mr. Bryce, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Jacob Bright, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr Whitley, Sir Lyon Playfair, Francis Powell.)

  [BILL 198.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  On the Motion of Mr. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.), the following Amendment made:—In Clause II., page 1, line 24, leave out all after "that," and insert—
  "A degree of any particular University shall be a qualification for any office, profession, or occupation, or shall confer any privilege or exemption in respect of the admission to any office, profession, or occupation, a corresponding degree of the Victoria University shall be a like qualification, or shall confer a like privilege or exemption."
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  OATHS BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Simon, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Courtney Kenny, Mr. Burt, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Richard, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause (Affirmation may be made instead of oath).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Bradlaugh,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee to report Progress; to sit-again To-morrow.

  ACCUMULATIONS BILL— [BILL 55.]
  (Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Elton, Mr. Haldane.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, that was the renewal of a Bill to which the House assented last Session, but which met with a less fortunate fate in "another place." In now asking the House to assent to the second reading, he did so in the belief that the Bill would effect a substantial improvement in the law, and that it would not be attended by any serious drawback. In support of the measure, there was a large mass of judicial opinion, and it had been carefully considered by a body whose opinion on matters of that kind deserved great weight, the body of solicitors represented by the Incorporated Law Society. That Society appointed a Committee to consider it, and the Committee had come to a resolution, that the Bill would remove much hardship, and that the proposed alteration of the law deserved support. Judge after Judge had declared that the present state of the law was attended with great inconvenience to families without corresponding advantage. He trusted the House would affirm the principle, and he would be content to leave all matters of detail to be dealt with by the Grand Committee on Law, or in any way the House might think right.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he trusted the House would not agree to the second reading. The Bill proposed to interfere in a very remarkable manner with the power of disposal over settled property, and to introduce

  1949
  a system that went far beyond anything that had been suggested or justified on substantial grounds in relation to settled property. It would have been just as well if the hon. Member had informed the House what his Bill had proposed to do. It was all very well to say that the Bill dealt with some abuse of the law that had been pointed out by the Court of Chancery; but, with all deference to his hon. Friend's experience and knowledge, he did not think the hon. Member could find a single Judge expressing an opinion which would justify the proposition in the Bill. Whether or not there should be some alteration in the Law of Settlement was quite another thing. Did the House know what the 1st clause enacted? It proposed that after the 1st of January next—
  "No person shall settle or dispose of any property in such manner that the rents, issues, profits, or income thereof shall be wholly or partially accumulated for any longer or other term than during the minority or respective minorities only of any person or persons who under the uses or trusts of the instrument directing such accumulation would for the time being, if of full age, be entitled to receive the rents, etc., so directed to be accumulated."
  In other words, suppose property left by anybody, or settled by one person in favour of another, who might be 18 or 19 years of age, and although it might be most desirable that the income from such property should be allowed to accumulate for 8, 10, or 20 years, yet that which was done under the existing law should no longer be legal, and as soon as the person in whose favour the settlement was made came to the age of 21, he should have absolute control over that property. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had behind him the opinion of some body representing solicitors.
  MR. COZENS-HARDY: The Incorporated Law Society.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: But was the Incorporated Law Society prepared to recommend that there should be no power to settle property for 5, 6, or 10 years, assuming that the person in whose favour the settlement was made came of age within the time? This question was but a part of a very much larger question; it concerned the whole law in relation to real property. If it was desirable that there should be an amendment of the law, then the matter should be dealt with in its
  1950
  entirety, not by picking out one particular point of the law, and saying henceforth any person was prohibited from settling property for a term of years. If the hon. Member would tell the House the grounds upon which he suggested the alteration proposed, then the House would be able to judge his reasons; but it was to be hoped that anybody who took an interest in the matter would realize for himself the scope of the Bill before he gave his vote for it. It was not a measure to prevent unnecessary accumulations it prohibited, without exception, any tying up of property beyond the coming of age of the testatee. Many Members must have known, within their experience, most useful settlements made until a person was 25 or 26 years of age, or even for longer periods; and cases would occur to many showing how desirable it was that the income from property should not be spent, having regard to the interests of young children. He would like to see any statement of the Incorporated Law Society proposing such a change as that in the Bill. They might have enunciated some proposition as to an alteration of the law, and that the law stood in need of amendment he would not for a moment deny; but it would be strange indeed if any Judge suggested that a Bill of this kind should pass.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he must be allowed to express surprise at the attitude taken up by the Government in the person of the hon. and learned Attorney General. He was under the impression that last Session, at all events, this was very much a law-reforming Government; and he was also under the impression, though his memory might be deceiving him, that when this Bill came before the House last Session, it was read a second time with the assent of the Government, the Attorney General himself speaking in support of it—
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg pardon. I did not speak in support of the Bill.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, then he must be under some misapprehension. But, in any event, the Government did not offer any opposition to the Bill last year. He remembered distinctly its passing through the House, and it was only in the House of Lords that it was stopped,

  1951
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said this was a very odd Bill, and he objected to piecemeal amendment of the law. But, with all deference to the great weight of the authority of the Attorney General, this was not an objection that might fairly be urged against the Bill. The very point the Bill dealt with was dealt with in the existing law by a single Statute which was known as the "Thellusson Act," which was passed to prevent accumulations by testators tying up property to any extent. It gave two classes of periods, beyond which accumulation was prohibited—the minority of individuals, or an absolute period of 21 years. All that the present Bill tried to do was to get rid of the absolute period of 21 years, and to keep testators to the minority. The Attorney General said he should like to hear it supported by any legal opinion of eminence, and he could supply the hon. and learned Gentleman with the opinions of two of the most distinguished conveyancing Judges who had sat on the Bench during the last half-century. Mr. Justice Pearson, speaking in reference to the case "Collins v. Collins," not long before he died, said—
  "To my mind, and with all the experience I have had of the effect of accumulations, I think they are mischievous."
  In another case, the same learned Judge said—
  "I am steadily opposed to all these practices of accumulations of incomes; they are always more or less mischievous, but, at the same time, they are legal. According to my mind, such trusts for accumulations are always unjust, but I have no jurisdiction to set them aside."
  Again, the late Vice Chancellor Malins, in reference to the case "Havelock v. Havelock," expressed a similar opinion against tying up incomes beyond the period of minority, an opinion which he said he shared in common with all Judges and, be believed, all counsel of experience; he would always discourage such accumulations, and cut them down as much as possible. That was all the Bill proposed to do, to take away the absolute period of 21 years; there was no rational reason for taking that period independently of any period of minority. He could give, not merely the recommendations of Judges, but of many others who, on the question of real property law reform, had made
  1952
  recommendations to the same effect. This was a very simple Bill; it passed the House last year, and he saw no reason why it should not again. An hon. Friend having referred him to the passage in Hansard, he now found that, after his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk last Session moved the second reading, the Attorney General was reported to have said—
  "I trust the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time—"
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Will the hon. Member read on?
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he was about to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman continued—
  "Before the question is decided, however, just wish to say that I am not quite sure that the measure does not go too far in reference to the matter of time. If the hon. Member will put off the Committee stage to some period which will give time for the consideration of clauses, and enable us to propose Amendments, if necessary, there will be no opposition to the second reading."—(3 Hansard, [312] 1449.)
  The Bill was put off as suggested; but no Amendments were moved. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and there, for some inexplicable reason, it was stopped. He trusted the House would assent to the second reading now, as it did before.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that this Bill was one of those which, during last Session, used to come on very late, or in the small hours of the morning, and did not excite much attention. Certainly it was undesirable that undue periods of accumulation should be allowed; but it was an open question whether the Bill did not go too far. If his recollection was correct, the case cited in which Vice Chancellor Malins made the observations alluded to had reference to the point of making allowance for maintenance pending the minority of an infant. Of course, that was an everyday matter for the Court of Chancery to determine. The allusion of the Vice Chancellor was to that he thought, and could not be cited as an authority for cutting out the alternative periods now allowed. The hon. and learned Member opposite had spoken of the period of 21 years as irrational; but it was the period in which children just born would come of age. It might be irrational to treat children as coming of age at 21 years, but that was the only thing irra-

  1953
  tional he could see in the period. He did not think any real reason had been shown why the period of accumulation should be cut down as proposed, or that any great inconvenience had resulted from carrying out the Thellusson Act. He felt some hesitation in agreeing to the proposed alteration, and if the Government divided against the Bill he should support them.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [BILL 155.]
  (Mr. hunter, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Esslemont.)

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th March "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, the object of the Bill was to prohibit trawling within the three-mile limit of the coast of Scotland as a general rule and principle, in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling. If there were, as there might be, cases in which it would be desirable that some exception or qualification should be introduced, Amendments to that effect might be conveniently made in Committee.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, the proposal in the Bill was absolutely to prohibit all trawling within the three-mile limit on the Scotch Coasts, and outside a line drawn across estuaries, putting an end, in fact, to all trawling within territorial limits. It was not the time of night to properly discuss what all must admit was a question of great importance. As the law stood, the Scotch Fishery Board had the power to do what the Bill proposed to do, if satisfied that at any place within territorial limits beam-trawling was injurious to the fishing industry generally. Such he took to be the power of the Board under the Act in reference to trawling, or they could shut up any
  1954
  place for the purpose of making experiments to satisfy themselves whether any mode of fishing was injurious to the fishing interest. In point of fact, under that clause, the Fishery Board had been engaged in numerous experiments; they had shut up fisheries in certain parts of territorial waters, and from time to time they had re-opened them. Nothing could be clearer than that the Act of 1885 contemplated such experiments for the purpose of arriving at satisfactory conclusions, and nothing also could be more clear than that in such a matter it was not possible to come to any clear decision without full and complete experiments, extending over a considerable period of time. The Fishery Board, at the present time, had responsibility under the Act of 1885, and they had not yet seen fit to come to any conclusion that this mode of fishing was generally injurious or otherwise. Under the Act of 1885 they could have proceeded to take steps for doing exactly the same thing as the Bill proposed to do—shutting up beam-trawl fishing throughout all the territorial waters of Scotland. They had not yet done so, nor had they yet laid before Parliament the results of their experiments in any form to enable Parliament to judge what the effect of such a step would be, and the expediency of taking it. Many people had expressed a most decided opinion that no further experiments were necessary; and, relying on their personal knowledge or information they had derived from various sources, they believed a Bill of this kind should be passed. But then there were also a great number of people who entertained an entirely different opinion; and, undoubtedly, up to the present time it had not been ascertained by experiment, that it was quite clear that the powers of the Fishery Board to stop trawling ought to be exercised. He thought, therefore, the Bill was, in the first place, premature; but his main principle of objection was not whether or not ultimately beam-trawling ought to be stopped in territorial waters—he put his objection to the Bill on the ground that a large sum of money had been invested in the beam-trawling industry, and that industry ought not to be destroyed until by complete experiments it had been ascertained that, in the interest of Scotch fishing generally, it ought to be

  1955
  abolished. That was only common sense and reason. He would not deny that it was possible it might turn out that beam-trawling was injurious to fishing within territorial waters; but if that should appear to be the case, then, with the consent of everybody in the House, beam-trawling would be abolished. But the Legislature, in the Act of 1885, had given the Fishery Board power to make experiments, and stop any mode of fishing proved objectionable, and there was, therefore, no need for the Bill. Time must be occupied to arrive at any definite and fair result. He was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) did not wish to put an end to an industry before it could be shown that it was detrimental to other industries. It would be premature to decide in the present state of matters that that was so, and to ask Parliament to step in and by direct Act prohibit this mode of fishing for all time. He did not think his hon. Friend should press the Bill, and meantime the Fishery Board would proceed with their experiments.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he desired to support the second reading. He was a Member of the Trawling Commission, and could say that the recommendation the Commission came to, that power should be given to the Fishery Board to stop trawling in territorial waters, was a recommendation arrived at in the manner usual on Commissions, by way of compromise. Members who had served on Committees and Commissions would know that a great deal had to be done in the way of compromise. No doubt, many Members of the Commission held the view strongly that trawling ought to be stopped within territorial waters altogether; but, at the same time, they gave way to the views of other Members of the Commission on the point. But he was certain that it was proved before the Commission that trawling within territorial waters was attended with the greatest possible amount of harm to fishing generally, and the least possible amount of good. The Lord Advocate had alluded to the loss to the trawl-fishing industry if trawl-fishing within territorial waters were prohibited; but the amount of trawling carried on within the territorial waters of Scotland was very small, and he believed that trawlers themselves in England and Scotland would object very little to trawling being stopped in terri-
  1956
  torial waters. But it was there that the greatest amount of interference was caused by the action of the trawls with other classes of fishermen. What should be looked at in those fishing matters was to secure that one class of fishermen exercised their industry with the least interference to others. Within the territorial waters the amount of trawl-fishing was very small indeed; whereas the amount of fishing carried on by long line and by drift nets was very much greater, so by the prohibition of trawling there would be but little interference with one branch of the industry, and a great benefit conferred on fishing by net and line. As to the opinions of scientific men, he believed that the scientific representative of the Board, Professor Cossar Ewart, held a strong opinion in favour of the prohibition, and so he was quite sure did Professors Macintosh and Ray Lankester. He challenged the Lord Advocate to cite professional opinions in regard to this matter. The question should not be decided by the amount of damage done by trawling to food fishes; but he was certain that if trawling did do damage to food fishes, it was greatest in the shallow waters, where the young fish came in their earliest stages. He was certain that a largo number of immature fish were destroyed by trawling. But he did not want to go into this at length, for he hoped there would be time to take a Division. The principle of the Bill he thought the majority would admit, and he urged the Government to accept the second reading, leaving minor questions for Committee.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he thought the question raised required more consideration than it could receive at that time. The amount of good or harm done by trawling was an open question. Personally, he disliked the beam-trawlers; but in Solway Firth, with which he was best acquainted, there was a wide area of shallow water, and there was a considerable amount of trawling. Southern fishermen had found out that fish were plentiful in this shallow water, and numbers of small craft came from far south to fish there. From their point of view, trawlers did a good deal of harm. But, on the other hand, it was said that the trawls did good by turning up the bottom and providing food for young fish. With a wide area of shallow

  1957
  water, some miles in extent, there should be some distinction made from other seas, and he gathered that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) would be disposed to consider such points in Committee, should the Bill get so far. However, he should prefer a longer discussion, if he could see his way to support the Bill. He hoped if a Division was taken it would not be upon the merits of the Bill, but rather upon whether time should be given to consider it more fully. He would therefore move that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. KELLYseconded the Motion. He should have expected that when such tremendous restrictions were sought to be imposed upon beam-trawling much more would have been stated against it. When he saw the Bill, he was perfectly astonished at the utter recklessness with which the rights of this class of fishermen were sought to be interfered with.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss the Bill. The Motion before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mark Stewart).
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 53: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Herbert Gardner, Bill to amend "The Public Libraries Act, 1855," ordered to be brought in by Hr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Arthur Acland, and Sir Lewis Pelly.
  Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 292.]

  CORN AVERAGES.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the present system of ascertaining the official average price of Corn in the United Kingdom, and to report what alterations, if any, are expedient."—(Mr. Jasper More.)
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Quarter Sessions (37).
Committee—Rochester Bishopric (98–146).
Third Reading—Clergy Discipline (118–147), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4)* (120); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5)* (121); Metropolitan Commons (Chislehurst and St. Paul's Cray)* (122).

CLERGY DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 118.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

THIRD READING.
Order of the day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a".—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in presenting two Petitions against the Bill from the clergy of his diocese, said, that the measure as originally drawn contained some very extraordinary and unjust provisions. It was in order that time should be given for the consideration of those provisions that on former
1808
occasions he had suggested that the Bill should not be passed with precipitation. The reply was that, on the whole, it was expedient to go on with the Bill in its amended form. The measure now before the House was practically a new Bill; not only did it deal with new matters, but it bore a new title. Originally the Bill was called the "Church Discipline Bill"; now it appeared as the "Clergy Discipline Bill." To the clergy in his diocese the measure was far from acceptable, the reason being that it provided a novel and very bad first Court, while it made no provision at all for appeals. The Court consisted of six persons—the Chancellor, three clergymen, and two laymen. The Chancellor was made absolute on matters of law, and had power to say what was a matter of law and what was not. The Court was neither a Judge nor a jury, but it would be a tolerable jury if the Chancellor were not there. This Court would not meet with general acceptance, and it was not the best that could be devised. It was not the Court recommended by the Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners, nor was it recommended in any other way; but it was an invention arrived at he knew not how, and it seemed to satisfy none of the conditions of a good Court. It was not what those who were called High Churchmen had asked for. The measure would destroy the old Consistorial Court altogether, and nobody wished it to be destroyed. Both Convocations had approved the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners, who condemned the notion of a Court consisting of several persons deciding by a majority, and recommended that the Bishop and the Chancellor should be Judges. It was a novel Court, and there would be difficulty in working it. The Bill involved the creation of many new Judges, for every diocese was to have one of these Courts; there would be from 180 to 200 of these Courts, and in the intricacies of local procedure, which would be more expensive than before, there would be great difficulty in getting them all to work harmoniously. Another extraordinary thing was that a Bishop might not be a promoter of a suit. Others would not deem it a desirable thing that they should have to institute prosecutions in these criminal cases. The Bishop was ousted from the Court, and all that he had to do was out-

1809
side. It would be unfortunate if this should prevent or delay inquiry in cases in which reports were current impugning the character and conduct of clergymen. By way of compensation the Bishop had some minor powers given him. The only inducement offered to them to accept this measure was the supposed cheapness of procedure, about which, however, there was considerable difference of opinion. There were seven steps which the Bishop had to take if he wished to get a case heard; and on the whole it could not be said that this was the best or strongest course possible, or that the Bill provided the simplest mode of procedure. With regard to the refusal of appeal, he thought he was justified in asking why this right, which was inherent to the laws of every country, was to be taken away by their Lordships' House without the slightest notice, and upon a single night's debate? The clergy would find that they had been placed in a totally different position from that with which they had been familiar by the action of their Lordships' House. The right of appeal was expressly recognized by the law. He had taken the course he had pursued in regard to this measure with great pain and regret, especially considering the lateness of the period at which he had intervened, and the fact that he had to differ with the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and other Members of the Episcopal Bench; but he must say that the clergy ought to have known what was being done, so that they might have been able to express their opinion on it. He did not intend to move the rejection of the Bill. His object was to ask for delay, so that the measure, which he considered so bad, might be judged, not by himself, but by those who were best able to judge it. If the Bishops were framing a measure by which they themselves were to be tried, they never would have framed such a Bill as this; and he would say further, in the presence of great legal lights, that it was impossible to suppose that such a measure as this, without any appeal and with so strange a tribunal, could have been drafted. Considering the position and services of the clergy he did think they ought to be thoroughly protected by that House and by the Bishops who had seats there. He hoped, therefore, that the measure would
1810
come to an end, so that the clergy might feel that they were protected by the law, and so that the right of appeal, which had never been denied to them, might not be taken away.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he wished to supplement the account which had been given of the original drafting of the Bill in order to show that they had done their very best to make the matter thoroughly intelligible to all concerned in it. It had been agreed that a Bill of that sort should be prepared by the whole body of Bishops in July last, and a Committee was appointed to prepare the Bill. Of that Committee the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken was a Member. They agreed to meet on the 21st of November at Addington. The most rev. Prelate who had just spoken concurred in that, but he was prevented at the last moment from attending, having another engagement in a Court of Appeal. The Committee were, therefore, obliged to proceed without him, and the Bill was sketched out under the presidency of the most rev. Primate of the Southern Province. The cases dealt with by that Bill were not like doctrinal or ritual cases; the decision of which turned almost entirely on matters of law, and which, therefore, should come as speedily as possible to London, where they could be litigated with all the advantage of having at command the best possible legal assistance. The cases dealt with in that Bill, on the other hand, turned, as a general rule, not on points of law but on questions of fact; and, therefore, it was thought that they should provide that those questions of fact should be determined, as under the ordinary Common Law, by investigation on the spot. It was considered that that would not only largely diminish expense, but would be more likely to secure a sound decision. It was the universal principle in all criminal business before the Courts of the State. There all those questions were decided on the spot by a jury. They were perfectly aware that it was not right that the Court should absolutely decide such questions. There was no appeal that he had heard of from the verdict of a jury in a criminal case, and no means of interfering with that verdict except by the use of the Prerogative of the Crown. There did not, therefore, seem any reason

1811
why there should be any very marked difference between these cases and those which were ordinarily submitted to a jury. But they felt that it would not be right in all cases that it should be left absolutely to the decision of the Court of First Instance with no possibility of having the decision reviewed, and for that reason from the beginning there had been in that Bill provision for a rehearing which was in reality an appeal, the difference being that it was a rehearing on the spot; and that seemed to them the right way of dealing with those questions of fact. He had himself sat on these cases of appeal in the Supreme Court, and he thought that nothing could be more unsatisfactory. They had to deal with the evidence put before them printed on paper, and had to examine it; and it seemed to him impossible not to be weighed down by the sense that the judgment pronounced on that evidence given on paper was in reality a judgment to the last degree given in the dark. They had the statement of the witnesses, indeed, but knew nothing at all of their demeanour. There was no distinct and clear record of how the evidence was exactly given; and he felt that it must be exceedingly unsatisfactory that the Court below, having come to a certain conclusion with the witnesses in person before it, should afterwards be overriden by a judgment pronounced with no witnesses before the Court at all. They inserted, therefore, a provision for a rehearing; upon different suggestions that were made that provision was strengthened, and they were prepared to strengthen it still further. But that anything would be gained by appeal on questions of fact in the absence of the witnesses was a very doubtful thing indeed. If there was any ground for a rehearing they were more likely to get justice done by having the case reheard with the witnesses before them than by sending it up to London to be judged of without the presence of witnesses. That provision as to a rehearing having been in the Bill all along, if the most rev. Primate who had spoken last objected to the provision, he could not understand why his objection came so very late. Another point was this. A measure was passed about three years ago called the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, which constituted a Court for the consideration
1812
of cases where clergymen were charged with the neglect of their ordinary ecclesiastical duties. That Court had now been in operation for three years; it had been worked in several dioceses, and had been found to work exceedingly well; and it had seemed to them that they could not do better than adopt a Court which had been actually tried, and which experience showed to be very efficient. They did not think it would be wise to leave the question of whether a man had been guilty of an offence absolutely to a single individual. The Diocesan Court would have decided such a matter by the judgment of the Chancellor. The Committee met again on February 8, and went through the drafted Bill. The Primate of the Northern Province was present all the time that they were discussing that question, and he could remind him of what he said on the matter. The Bill then contained a reference to that Court as constituted by the Pluralities Act Amendment Act. The Bill simply provided that the Court, as constituted under that Act, should be the Court for the purpose of this Bill. The Primate for the Northern Province objected to that, and said it was not right that the Court should be defined by reference to another Act, but ought to be fully defined in the Bill before them, on the ground that it was a Bill of very high importance, and that the other Act was a very subordinate one. They entirely acceded to the suggestion, and they accordingly provided that the Court should be such as was provided by the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, but that it should be described in words, and not by reference to the above-named Act, and accordingly that had been done. The most rev. Primate of the Northern Province was there when they settled that matter, and they had done with that question before he left the room. The most rev. Primate did not stay the whole time, he knew; the exact moment when he left he could not say; but he had every opportunity, with the Bill in his hands, of saying anything he pleased on the question of a rehearing being substituted for an appeal, and he did not take the trouble.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I did not know of it.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe most rev. Prelate said he did not know it and did not read it; but it was in his

1813
hands, and they could do no more. If he would not read it, and said he know nothing about it, what could the Committee have done more? The most rev. Prelate told them now that he did not read it. He was sorry indeed for that, but surely they were justified in assuming that he really was cognizant of the matter as far as they were concerned. There were two other Courts besides that one, because there was a choice left between three distinct Courts. When the Bill was read a second time objection was taken to that, and it was urged that it would be far better to define the precise powers of that one Court, and to make it stand alone, and not to leave any alternative. Accordingly, when the Bill was altered in Committee, what was done was to keep that Court, but to define it more exactly, and to lay down that in that Court the Chancellor should have the decision of questions of law, and that the other members of the Court should only decide questions of fact; and to make it more clear they inserted words to the effect that the Chancellor should not only decide questions of law, but should also decide what were questions of law and what were questions of fact. The Court, as so constituted, would be a really strong Court. He had no doubt that it would do its work with ease and efficiency, because, having already tried those Courts, they knew what they could do, and there was not the slightest difficulty in working them. This, then, was the position which the Bill occupied. The things which had been objected to had been in the Bill from the beginning, and any changes made in the Bill had been introduced in order to make matters clear where they were likely to be misunderstood. The two matters to which the most rev. Prelate objected had been before the clergy for some time, and they had had ample opportunity of understanding the mode in which it was proposed to deal with those cases. He had no doubt that the most rev. Prelate could, if he chose, bring forward many Petitions from the clergy against the present measure, or against any other Bill which he did not happen to like. But he could testify that he had received, since the introduction of the Bill, constant encouragement to go on with it. Again and again he had been told by the clergy that they did not wish to keep black sheep among
1814
them. He believed this to be true. There was no body of men who would be more grateful if scandalous living clergymen were removed from their midst; and he believed that if this Bill were passed into law it would do a great deal to bring about that result.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKexplained that he deeply disliked the Bill from the first, but having been prevented from taking part in the initial stages of it he had withdrawn from its consideration until now.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought their Lordships had some ground of complaint against the most rev. Prelate who commenced the discussion. The measure was of great importance to the clergy of this country, and upon such a question their Lordships naturally desired to obtain all the assistance and guidance possible. A large number of their Lordships had been actuated by one motive only—to assist the most rev. Prelate who introduced the measure, and to make the Bill as good as possible for the purpose of regulating and making less expensive and onerous than at present the getting rid of clergymen who were a disgrace to the Church. That was an object in which all their Lordships had an interest. Unless, then, the most rev. Prelate was of opinion that no amendment of the law was necessary, surely their Lordships might have expected that he would render to them all the great assistance which he was so well capable of affording in order to make the measure as good and effective as it could possibly be made. He did not understand the most rev. Prelate to say that the law was not unsatisfactory. He thought he would be a bold man who asserted that the law was satisfactory. If, therefore, the law was unsatisfactory, surely their Lordships received but little assistance by a speech on the third reading of the Bill which did not guide them to a correct conclusion, which did not point out what should be done, but which merely pointed out what had been done, and which simply invited in "another place" the rejection of a measure to which their Lordships had devoted a great deal of time and attention. The most rev. Prelate had explained that he did not agree with the Bill as introduced and as discussed among the occupants of the Episcopal Bench, and therefore he had taken no further part in the discus-

1815
sion. That might be a satisfactory explanation, but the bulk of their Lordships were in a different position from the Episcopal Bench. When a question of this kind was introduced to the notice of their Lordships, surely they had a right to anticipate that if the most rev. Prelate differed from the other occupants of the Episcopal Bench he would say why he differed, where he thought the Bill wrong, and where he thought it could be made better. He understood that the main objection was taken to the want of appeal on questions of fact. He admitted the force of many of the observations which had been made; but their Lordships were in this difficulty. If they allowed an indiscriminate right of appeal, they would sanction at the same time an indiscriminate right to cause expense. They must, therefore, determine which was the greater evil. This Bill dealt with moral offences which did not come within the scope of the Criminal Law. Here it was thought that questions of fact, but not of law, might be determined by a tribunal consisting of several individuals whose decision might well be accepted. It must be remembered, too, that in cases of a far graver character than these, and where the consequences were infinitely greater, a certain number of individuals did determine questions of fact. The most rev. Prelate might have assisted their Lordships in determining to what extent an appeal might be allowed on special application and if a sufficient case had been made out, without at the same time increasing the burden of expense. He had no doubt that if the most rev. Prelate had any suggestions to offer likely to cause the Bill to assume a better shape their Lordships would be ready to listen to him and to consider the proposals. He could not help, however, deprecating the general attack made on a Bill having a most laudable object in view and to which great attention had been given, an attack which might hinder the chances of the measure "elsewhere," without bringing their Lordships nearer to the solution of a very difficult question.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, the noble and learned Lord had said that he must be a bold man who would say that he was satisfied with the state of things at present existing. He was bold enough to say that in the matters dealt with by
1816
this Bill the present state of things was better than it would be were the proposed changes made. He would add that if it was really correct, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had said, that the Bench of Bishops had no object, in the three separate and utterly different editions of their Bill, but to make its original meaning more clear, he could not congratulate the Episcopal Bench upon the success of their endeavours.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he thought that if the Bill had any excellence at all it was in the character of its Court of First Instance, which would be able satisfactorily to decide questions of fact. Five men chosen in the way proposed by the measure did, in his opinion, constitute a very good Court of First Instance; and, although it was neither judge nor jury, it possessed in an excellent sense the qualifications of both. With regard to the veto, to which objection had been made, he could understand that there might be a difference of opinion when the question was one of doctrine or ritual; but he wondered there could be any difference of opinion in the matter of moral offences. It might be a grievous wrong to a clergyman even to be put upon his defence. He could not understand how the most rev. Prelate could be satisfied with the system of Letters of Request; the most rev. Prelate had mentioned to him a case in which it had cost him £600 to get a clergyman suspended for six weeks.
THE BISHOP OF LIVERPOOLsaid, he agreed with the most rev. Prelate that the Bill contained many objectionable provisions. He could not approve any measure of ecclesiastical reform which contained a power of veto by the Bishops such as was to be found in the present measure. A Bishop was, after all, but a man, and should not have the power alone of preventing proceedings. He objected also very much to the prevention of appeal on all matters of fact. He did not think that the proposed tribunal was likely to be a very strong one. He also believed that the old system of inquiring into charges against a clergyman by means of a Commission had answered very satisfactorily. The Bill ought to have been brought before the whole body of the Church before it became law, but it had never been examined by any Congress or Diocesan Congress.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought the Bill as it stood would effect a great improvement in the existing law. In his opinion there was no solid foundation for the objections which had been raised against it. The laity, as well as the clergy, were interested in these matters; and a body of laymen selected from all the dioceses of the country, over whom he had the honour to preside, had by one unanimous voice expressed their opinion that there ought to be no appeal on matters of fact in these cases; and when it was provided, as in the Bill, that there should be a new trial, everything was done that justice required in the interests of the accused person. By doing more they would be throwing unnecessary expense upon persons whose duty it was to take steps to have unworthy clergymen removed from their offices. He protested against the notion that protection for the accused should be carried to the extent of obstructing the course of justice. In every sense that justice required, a full right of appeal was given by this Bill. The right of appeal on questions of law remained unimpaired, and the right to a rehearing, upon proper grounds, on questions of fact. This was more than existed in criminal, and as much as existed in civil cases. As to the alleged hardship of there not being a right of appeal when the Court was divided in opinion, the most rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill was, he understood, about to provide, by amendment in this stage, that there should be a right of appeal in all cases when the Court below was divided.
LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he would like to know whether the judgment was a matter of law or a matter of fact? In his opinion the means of giving judgment provided in the Bill were contrary to the principles of English justice. He objected to the Bill which made the Bishop, Judge, executioner, prosecutor, and pardoner. The Bishop was given a right of veto and of refusing to pass the sentence which the Court thought ought to be passed. Besides the Acts and the Canon of 1571, which he had cited before as showing that the Bishop had never had any right to interfere at all, and much loss to stop the sentence of his own Court for deprivation, the felony Act of 1870 still more distinctly decided against it, by making conviction in the Civil Court, ipso facto, deprivation for ever.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he did not quite understand the point of the noble and learned Lord with regard to the judgment. Every judgment was made up partly of law and partly of fact. When the verdict had ascertained and determined the facts then the Court pronounced judgment. That was what was proposed in the present Bill.
On Question, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 147.)

QUARTER SESSIONS BILL—(No. 37.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to give Justices at Quarter Sessions a wider discretion in regard to the periods when Sessions for gaol delivery should be held. The measure would enable them to fix such dates for the holding of Quarter Sessions as would make it possible for them always to clear the gaols of the cases popularly called Quarter Sessions cases before the Assizes. The results of widening the powers of Justices in this way would be to save Her Majesty's Judges on Circuit great inconvenience and to economize much of the time which they at present spent in clearing the gaols.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE—THE REV. MR. DALE, OF CHISWICK.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTasked the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Whether the Reverend Mr. Dale, Curate of Chiswick, in the diocese of London, who joined the Church of Rome in February last, still held the Bishop's licence to officiate as Curate of Chiswick in the Church of England; and, if so, whether the Bishop considered this consistent with the doctrine and discipline of the Established Church?
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that he did not think this was a matter of grave importance; but he would tell their Lordships how it stood, and he hoped his statement would satisfy the noble Viscount. On the 21st of February he received a letter from the gentleman in question stating that it was not possible for him any longer to minister at Chiswick as he had ceased to be a member of the Church of England, and, therefore, he could no longer help in a Church in which he had ceased to believe. He (the Bishop of London) desired his chaplain to reply, expressing regret that the rev. gentleman had thought it necessary to take such a step, but commending him for having at once given up his duty as a curate in the Church of England. The next day he received a letter from a relative of Mr. Dale, stating that that gentleman was hardly in his senses, that he had been much overworked and did not quite know what he was doing, but expressing a belief that he had not been received into the Church of Rome. That turned out to be a mistake, for he had actually been received. The young man wrote to him about a fortnight afterwards to say that he did not know what he had been about, and could not give any account of himself at all. He sent for the young man, and on examination it appeared very plain that he had no real reason for leaving the Church of England. It was a sort of mad impulse. He told the young man that in the circumstances, having caused a scandal, he could not be allowed to officiate any more without an express renewal of permission, and that, before permission were granted, he would be required to make a public recantation as some satisfaction to the Church for the scandal he had caused. At the time the young man was quite unable, from ill-health, to officiate at all, and nothing more passed between them. He told the young man that if ever he wished to officiate again he must apply to him, and he would tell him the precise conditions on which he would be allowed to do so. He had since seen the young man, who was not permitted by his medical adviser to undertake any duty. He did not withdraw the licence of the young man on receiving notice that he had left the Church of England; it was not usual to do so in such a case, for it
  1820
  was generally understood that such an action voided the licence ipso facto. Certainly he had treated the licence as void, because he had told him that he must not officiate without renewed permission from the Bishop of whatever diocese he happened to be in. There the matter stood. Earnest appeals had been made to him by the people of the parish to allow the curate to return to his duties in the parish, because, although he might not be a very wise or clear-headed man, nevertheless he bad worked hard and endeared himself to a great many people, especially among the poor. However, he had given a negative answer to all those applications, stating plainly that, at any rate for the present, he could not allow him to officiate in the parish of Chiswick, and the future must be left in his hands when the time came to decide what was to be done; but he would certainly not allow the young man to officiate without such a recantation as would be, in his judgment, a satisfaction to the Church of England. Their Lordships would see that the matter was really a very simple one, and that there was no reason for any disturbance or discomfort about it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he must protest against their Lordships' House being made a Court for the review of the various decisions of the Bishops in England and Wales. He sincerely trusted it would not be understood from this incident that whenever there was a case of satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the part of a Bishop it was any part of the duty of their Lordships to put Questions to the right rev. Prelates in regard to matters of ordinary episcopal administration.

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Return, for each of the years 1872 to 1887 inclusive, of all Private Bills and Provisional Orders referred to a Committee in either House as opposed, on which Committees were named; showing whether passed, not passed, or how otherwise dealt with; also showing those opposed in Committees of both Houses, and those that received the Royal Assent; and summary showing for each year the number of Bills and Provisional Orders so dealt with; and also summary showing for each year the number of Scotch and Irish Bills and Provisional Orders so dealt with; Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Monk-Bretton.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.